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."

Comments

BARRATRY!

[Grendel Drago]

So... they're demanding to sue en masse like this? Using lawsuits and demanding massive settlements? Isn't this the definition of barratry---abuse of the legal system for extortion? If so, do smartcard reader owners have the basis for a class action?

--grendel drago

Re:BARRATRY!

[imaro]

Seems like people would have an excellent suit in response to false claims. If the device was not used to facilitate an illegal activity, then its libel/slander. You could atleast go to court for emotion damages, and a judge would probably make the defendent pay lawyer's fees for the victim.

Re:BARRATRY!

[kscheetz]

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[shaunj]

The article says that 7 plantiffs filed a class-action against DirecTV and it was ruled that DirecTV was in the right and the 7 people were also stuck with DirecTV's $100k legal bill from that case.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Chris_Jefferson]

So... they're demanding to sue en masse like this? Using lawsuits and demanding massive settlements? Isn't this the definition of barratry---abuse of the legal system for extortion? If so, do smartcard reader owners have the basis for a class action?

No, because if you'd read the article (and related articles) you would know they are only sueing people who bought equipment which was specifically advertised as having the use of cracking DirecTV's system. 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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[JCCyC]

From the article, it seems a judge in California smacked down one of those suits against DirecTV.

Remember the judge in "Revenge of the Nerds"?

Re:BARRATRY!

[Carbonite]

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Dr Caleb]

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? 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".

Re:BARRATRY!

[werdna]

So... they're demanding to sue en masse like this? Using lawsuits and demanding massive settlements? Isn't this the definition of barratry

Only if they are wrong and their suits are objectively baseless.

Re:BARRATRY!

[BigBadBri]

Plenty.

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[LordKronos]

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Spellbinder]

if you buy a gun from a legal source which says it is good to shoot peoples but you are not shooting on humans
do you think you are doing something illegal??
would you have to prove you don't shoot peoples with this guns??
would a human rights organisation be able to sue you because of this???
i would say the answers to all those questions are no
i'm pro gun control and just chose this example because i know how sensitve americans react to gun control issues
i could have just made the same statement with a kitchen knives i try to sell and promote for murder
maybe i would be doing something illegal but is can not imagine the knives i sold to get ilegal because of this

Re:BARRATRY!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what Echostar's (owner of Dish Network) take on this is... ...and what will Cablevision do about this?

Re:BARRATRY!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

(1) There is probable cause. Federal statutes prohibit the possession of "Pirate Devices" (see 47 U.S.C. section 521 et. seq. and 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq.). There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices. The fact that a small percentage of buyers did use them some people use them for legit purposes does not change the fact that virtually all of the purchasers were stealing signals.

(2) Intentional malice is going to be impossible to prove. Does Directv give a damn about any of these people, except for the information that they uncovered in busting the distributors? No. There's no malice.

Lovely slashbot crying. Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief. Sure. Whatever.

Re:BARRATRY!

[JAgostoni]

I am quite certain that you don't have a Ferrari ... you'd be too busy spit shining it to post to /. But your point, perhaps delivered in an awkward fashion, is valid. I always see people trying to blur the freedom to "do what I want with it 'cause I bought it" in as an excuse to steal it. Frankly, if you don't want to pay the fees then don't get the service. It certainly doesn't sustain life for you so ya don't need it. But it is FUN to steal it ...

Re:BARRATRY!

[JAgostoni]

A vote for AC is a vote for socialism. But seriously, folks, less yappin' and more action! You should go show your local rep. what a real felony is ... er ... I mean write him a letter explaining why corporations suck.

Re:BARRATRY!

[stonecypher]

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?

Re:BARRATRY!

[imaro]

Slander: 1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. Sounds liek slander to me, I'm not often charged with crimes, but that's just me.

Re:BARRATRY!

[GigsVT]

The locksmith, the AAA guy, and the police officer have good reasons to have these things.

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.

I know how to pick locks; I never intend to use it for any crime. If I accidentally lock myself out of somewhere I'm allowed to be in, I'll save myself a pretty good chunk of money.

I know how to solder and repair electronics. The soldering iron can also be used for installing mod chips or building satellite card programmers.

Tools are tools. They don't have to have a compelling legitimate use to untrained people to be legal. Anything else is facist.

Re:BARRATRY!

[CrowScape]

I read DirecTV's claims about how these are people going to pirate websites to buy their equipment, so I decided to run a little experiment. I took on the role of Joe Securityguy who wants a smart card programmer so he could set up his security system. I decided the most likely way someone, in this day and age, would search them out would be a search engine. So, I fired up Yahoo (yeah, not Google, I know), typed "smart card programmer" into the text area, and hit search. On the page that showed up, the second prominint link, which appeared in the Yahoo Sponsers area, was a pirate site. It also looked like the most likely place that would sell them, as many appeared to be reviews and the like. So, considering I would have to almost go out of my way to look for a "legitimate" site, while this pirate site is right in front of me, selling legal merchandise, I don't see DirecTV's arguement as being all that strong, do you?

Re:BARRATRY!

[Anonymous Coward]

When it's Evil Corp vs. Poor Schmuck, Poor Schmuck is doomed as long as he fights against Evil Corp. But Evil Corp is still run by people and it doesn't take much research to figure out exactly who is sending out those letters. At some point, Poor Schmuck is going to take the matter directly to the guy who sent the letter and then it will be Extremely Pissed Off and Homicidal Schmuck vs. Scared Shitless Attorney.

These companies need to learn that they are destroying people's lives and the only way they're going to learn this lesson is when people start destroying theirs.

It's not that I'm advocating violence but what would you do if your entire life savings was about to be wiped out by a corp and you were completely innocent of any wrong doing and had no way to stop it?

Re:BARRATRY!

[Spazmania]

The definiton of libel is: [...] 1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

Documents filed with the court qualify as public presentation, do they not?

BTW, libel is not a crime. Its a violation of civil law. You can be sued for libel, but you can't be fined/arrested/jailed for libel.

Re:BARRATRY!

[bjtuna]

If companies would be less greedy and not charge as much for services maybe people would want to buy things instead of stealing them

Yeah well if the Queen had balls, she'd be king. Companies are out to make money -- it's what they do. You think DTV was started for the common good of mankind?

Re:BARRATRY!

[TheCarp]

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

Re:BARRATRY!

[WTFmonkey]

The Power of Shift

Re:BARRATRY!

[Lershac]

"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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[capnjack41]

Let's see. Guns are designed to kill things, but everyone has a legal right to own one. However, buying a smartcard reader means you were going to steal TV programming, and the consequences are more severe. I don't get it.

(note: I'm not an anti-gun freak; I'm just sayin'.)

also: does prior restraint fit into all this? I don't know the first thing about law but this concise explanation seems to indicate so:

In essence, prior restraint consti-tutes a label which may be applied fairly to all state restrictions which fetter human action before the fact.

If you bought a device that's used for many, many different things, and you're liable to be sued even though there's no evidence that shows you were about to do so...

Re:BARRATRY!

[HuskyDog]

I'm sorry, but I am a little bit confused here.

As I understand it, seven people tried to sue DirecTV and failed and now they have to pay DirecTV's legal bills ($100,000). I also understand that many people who receive these $3500 threats, send in the money because fighting the case would cost more than $3500. If they fight the case and win, doesn't DirecTV have to pay THEIR legal fees, exactly as in the class action above?

Is the problem:

1. That they don't think that they will win.
2. That they can't raise the money in the first place, so it doesn't matter that they will get it back.
3. That US law alows costs to be awarded against individuals but not against corporations (I would not be surprised if this was true).
4. Something else.

Re:BARRATRY!

[tolan-b]

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..

Re:BARRATRY!

[Computer!]

I would find the person responsible, and hand them a beating. Why don't more people do this? I mean, what do you have to lose?

Note that it only works if you can actually beat up the average lawyer.

Re:BARRATRY!

[asscroft]

Do you own kitchen knives? Perhaps You're the one who killed Nicole. Quick! Someone tell OJ so he can clear his name.

Just because a knife can be used to kill someone, doesn't mean it's a MURDER DEVICE. So why is a smart card programmer a PIRATE DEVICE?

The only Pirate Devices I don't think I could argue the definition of woul be a Parrot, a Wooden Leg, an Eye Patch, a Funny hat with skull and cross bones, a wine bottle wrapped in dried grasses, a sword, potentially a mustache? No, some people own parrots and aren't pirates at all, so there goes that too.

Re:BARRATRY!

[sparrow_hawk]

There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices. The fact that a small percentage of buyers did use them some people use them for legit purposes does not change the fact that virtually all of the purchasers were stealing signals.

Now where have I heard this before?

Ah, lovely. I remember now. Do you enjoy your job as the RIAA's personal whipping boy/mouthpiece?

There is clear legal precedent (Grokster, Limewire, et al) for the idea that possible illegal use of a technology does not make the technology itself illegal. Is it comfortable under your rock?

Re:BARRATRY!

[Jardine]

No, some people own parrots and aren't pirates at all, so there goes that too.

That's just what they want you to think.

Re:BARRATRY!

[letxa2000]

It seems that doing lawsuits en masse, by definition, are objectively baseless. If they analyze each case and make an objective decision then I wouldn't see it is barratry. But if they just get a mailing list of people that have bought these things and fire off these threats indiscriminantly then they ARE going to be wrong sometimes and they are objectively baseless in the sense that they didn't even make a reasonable effort to determine if an individual accusation is baseless.

I am somewhat worried about this whole affair because I did purchase one of these devices. Some years ago a visitor to my website that deals with microcontrollers wrote me asking about how to write microcontroller programs for smartcards. I didn't even know, until then, that smartcards HAD microcontrollers. So I immediately became excited at the possible applications and went out and bought one of these devices since I was going to play with the technology and, perhaps, come up with new products. Or at the very least expand my own microcontroller knowledge.

Now it turns out that DirecTV is threatening anyone that purchased one of these devices. I don't doubt that many or even most people that purchase(d) them do so for less than legitimate uses, but there ARE those of us who have legitimate uses for them. The problem is that the article seems to suggest that DirecTV isn't interested in talking about it. They just ask you to pony up $3500. Otherwise they sue you for $10k plus fees. That's absurd.

I haven't received one of these letters, but if I do then I'm definitely going to have to talk to my lawyer about what to do. It's bogus because $3500 is certainly going to be less than to defend my legal use of the device. At that point, it's extortion. DirecTV offers a settlement at a price point they know is less than what it will cost anyone to defend themselves so even innocent people just decide to cave and send them a check for $3500. But that's so much BS being in a position to have to pay DirecTV $3500 because if they sue you it's going to cost more.

I don't have DirecTV, Dish, or cable. I don't even live in the U.S. right now. But if/when I move back to the U.S. I can guarantee you I WON'T be subscribing to DirecTV regardless of whether or not I ever receive one of these letters.

Re:BARRATRY!

[HiThere]

If that's the only reason for corporations to exist, then coporations should be ruled illegal.

Actually, there are many legitimate reasons, but it sure doesn't cover a lot of the garbage that they are into these days, and it seems to me that "revocation of corporate charter for not contributing substantially to society" should be put back on the books. Under that law a corporation must periodically prove that it's existence is a net benefit to society.

(I forget the exact phrasing, and the exact terms used...but corporations used to have a very conditional existence.)

Re:BARRATRY!

[FreezerJam]

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[HiThere]

I wonder if this kind of case can be appealed. (And if he would choose to do so. Appealing is even more expensive than the current case would be.)

Personally, I don't have enough faith in the legal system to bother with an appeal. I figure that since I have less money, I'd loose, and that what's right has nothing to do with it. The counter examples are too rare to estimate (1%? Less?). They exist, but they are rare enough to make headlines when they happen.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Malicious]

Actually, the jude would probably let the defendant off, and make the plaintiff pay the victim's legal fees.

Re:BARRATRY!

[UnknowingFool]

The judge ruled that DirecTV's tactics in the case did not amount to extortion. He did not rule on the merits of DirecTV's claims.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Lt Razak]

Why not? The RIAA is crying that there are CDROM drives in computers, and the MPAA is mad that there is DVDROM drives in computers.

I agree with you 100%. DirectTV should have made a proprietary system. Not some 2-cent card to save money

Re:BARRATRY!

[Lt Razak]

Since when is $25/month too expensive for TV?

I just made the jump from the cable cartel to DirectTV. Finally! A house with a view to the southern sky.

I don't agree with what they did, but neither am I bitching about the cost of DirectTV's feed. Come on, it's not like we're talking about an $18 music CD!!!!!

Re:BARRATRY!

[91degrees]

PIRACY ISN'T THEFT! It isn't theft. It isn't murder. It isn't jaywalking. The "owners" of the signal haven't lost anything if you pirate it. They haven't even lost the money you would have paid, because they never had it in the first place.

It may be aquiring the signal by deception. It may be illegal, and unethical, but stop calling it theft.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Arker]

Well I for one would be happy to pay for advertising-free TV.

But the greed here is incredible. Where do people get this notion that they have a legally enforceable right to make a profit off a bad business model?

DTV has several options as I see them. They can write off the 'pirating' as inevitable and ignore it, concentrating on sucking the honest customers dry. They can change their offerings to compete better with the 'pirate' offers. Or they can use cartooneys to threaten everyone in sight hoping this will somehow make them more money than it costs.

Apparently they're choosing door number 3, which I think is pretty dumb, but not surprising really.

If I were them I'd try something a little more creative. What is the draw to the 'pirate' cards? You get access to whatever channels you want, for a one-time fee, instead of paying out the ass for the super-deluxe top of the line package every month just for the one channel you actually watch, am I right?

Plus there is the element of everyone wanting to feel like they're the smart one, getting the forbidden fruit cheap while the other chumps pay big bucks month after month... I'm sure that's an element.

Now remember, these 'pirates' are paying, they're just paying lump sums instead of recurring fees, and they're paying them to someone else. That's the problem, from DTVs point of view, if they would just look at it clearly.

So, what I would do if I were them, is just start a little subsidiary. Hide the ownership, yo don't have to do anything illegal, just the kind of obfuscation any corporate lawyer or accountant knows how to do, so that it's not obvious. Have this little subsidiary get into the pirate card business. Have your techs working on breaking pirate cards, of course, as they've done all along. But have your techs and your subsidiary work together, so that most of the time when you break the other pirate cards those sold by your subsidiary don't break. Still break them sometimes, of course, so you get a round of upgrade sales, but make sure your own cards get the reputation for being the ones that usually don't break.

Pretty soon, not only are you getting the regular fees from your ordinary subscribers, you also own the pirate decoder market as well. Now remember, they're working in a market where most of the costs are fixed. It costs them the same amount to run that programming whether they have 1 subscriber or one million subscribers. They have the exact same costs whether there are no 'pirates' or 10 or 100 or a million as well. So this extra income is pure gravy.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Arker]

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.

Bah. I have a very good reason to carry lockpicks. And no, I'm not going to tell you what it is. I'm a free man, and it's none of your business.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Lt Razak]

Your argument only works if buying a smart-card writer is illegal. Is it? No. Then that means DirectTV needs to prove there was service theft.

Which is what they should have done with the info they got from the raids!! Instead, they go one step EASIER and just send a form letter. That's wrong.

Re:BARRATRY!

[fishbowl]

"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."

If they are asking the State to press a criminal case against you, then yes. They could never reach the standard of proof needed for the case to even see the inside of a court room.

However, if this is being brought as a civil suit, the standards of proof are not so high.

Re:BARRATRY!

[GigsVT]

And neither of you can spell fascism.

Maybe I spelled it wrong deliberately to see if the other guy would notice or not. :)

OK, I'm not quite that clever.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Anonvmous Coward]

" Using lawsuits and demanding massive settlements? Isn't this the definition of barratry---abuse of the legal system for extortion? If so, do smartcard reader owners have the basis for a class action?"

Maybe I'm just naieve, but I can't help but think that putting the money from lawsuits into things such as advertising would yield a better return on investment, especially considering the backlash this could cause.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Dr Caleb]

What legitimate purpose did these decoders serve?

I wasn't talking the decoder, only the smartcard reader/programmer. As for the analogy;

I have several IBM thin clients that use smartcards containing a bootable BSD kernel to load an image from an AS/400. They are pretty much the same card that DirectTV uses. Reader/programmers are expensive, and if this reader/programmer were cheaper than one I already have, then I might pick one up and save myself some money.

Irrelevant that they could be used to reprogram DirectTV cards, that's not what I intended them to be used for. I'm just cashing in on a cheap deal for a tool I use quite a bit.

Now, if I got a cease and desist letter from DirectTV, I'd be rather unhappy about it. I bought it legally, I use it in a legal manner, piss off!

Re:BARRATRY!

[cait56]

The article cites one developer who used the smart card programmer on a prototype project. Smart cards have many uses. See www.datacard.com.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Greedo]

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 ...?

Re:BARRATRY!

[MrResistor]

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[z84976]

Don't forget... there's another 'way out' for the accuser in these cases... if I go to your neighbors' doors and say "I think TheCarp is a soulless child molesting felon" there's nothing they can do because of the "I think" part. If DirecTV published a list of names and said they are of the opinion that these people are criminals, I don't think there's much you could do. Of course, I could be wrong, and of course, I actually *pay* for my DirecTV (though may switch to Dish after this, as a matter of principle, since I own a card programmer myself--- one that I don't THINK can forge DTV cards, but probably could have forged their older obsoleted ones (but didn't)).

Re:BARRATRY!

[ReaperOfSouls]

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[smallfeet]

It's not a question of punishing the guilty but punishing the innocent. Isn't there a "golden thread that runs through our jurisprudents" that says something about letting 10 guilty people go free rather then punish one innocent man? directv is hog shit and I am ashamed to live in a country that allows and encourages this sort of behavior by corporations. I will never buy anything from them.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Mooncaller]

What do you expect from a Californian judge. Most are appointed by Democratic admistrations because of their pro-Hollywood leanings. This McCoy guy seems to fit the mold perfectly, though I have seen some refrences to him being one of the better "Technical" Judges. That is why he offen handles highly complex cases. I do see a problem with his very hands on approch leaving a lot of room for the filtering of data to unconcsiously support preconcieved opinions. Its amasing what a little googleing can turn up.

Re:BARRATRY!

[imaro]

Close, but no cigar, that would only be in the original lawsuit -- DTV v. user.

I'm refering to user v. DTV, the slander suit for when DTV goes crazy and accusses innocent little old grandmothers who have a smartcard reader for legitimate purposes... just like my *medical* weed

Re:BARRATRY!

[ricochet_ca]

Libel and slander are not crimes. They are tort offenses.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't agree with DirecTV and think they should lose these lawsuits, you missed one point. The websites the devices are purchased from are dedicated to piracy. They aren't going after people who bought stuff from DigitKey (one place you could get the parts).

So, for your anal-ogy, it would be like buying a knife from a death store that also sold guns and poisons. And the description of the knife said, it was long enough to hit the heart of a 250 lb man.

As I said before, that's still not proof you murder people, but it's not a kitchen knife either.

Re:BARRATRY!

[queequeg1]

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.

Re:BARRATRY!

[LineNoiz]

Since when is $25/month too expensive for TV?

$25 a month? I wish. The very basic package is $30. According to the article, the average subscriber to DTV pays $61 a month. I pay close to $90, but I likes the movie channels...

Re:BARRATRY!

[JAgostoni]

Duly Noted. Me grammer ain't too well and that.

Re:BARRATRY!

[BigBadBri]

Come back when you've got something worthwhile, like a 1930s Merc, or a Vincent Black Shadow.

I wouldn't waste my time for a hairdresser's car
;-).

Re:BARRATRY!

[caitsith01]

'Note: I didn't say "how I intend to use it".'

Actually intention is all important in criminal law. Murder is manslaughter if you didn't intend to kill someone. Conspiracy to commit an offence is nothing if you weren't intending to commit the offence. In general, crimes should be considered in terms of mental state, not simply by actions.

Re:BARRATRY!

[CySurflex]

beware of geeks with parrots

Re:BARRATRY!

[martyros]

Note also that the class action suit was not really based on the merits of DirectTVs case - they accused DirectTV of extortion.

And even that case seems to have been thrown out on a technicality... the letters sent threatening to sue were "part of the litigation" and therefore "legally protected" -- which, I assume, means that they can't be used in another case, or some such hoo-ya.

I'm really surpised California doesn't have anti-barratry laws or something to compensate for that... if they do, and the attourneys still cried 'extortion', they probably didnt' do their homework -- and aren't worht the $100k. =)

Re:BARRATRY!

[RedRider]

Let's not forget, stealing is theft.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Jooly Rodney]

Forget barratry -- if we're pirates, shouldn't we try a little parlay?

"Barratry"'s enough to give even the most articulate pirate nightmares, anyway.

Re:BARRATRY!

[bobbozzo]

FWIW, $100,000 was the amount awarded to DTV for THEIR legal fees, not how much the class action lawyer would charge his clients.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> The suit is in the public record, so then it's
> libel (assuming you really are innocent).

Yes, the truly massive numbers of people who bought smart card writers and didn't use them to get free DirecTV (note, not DirectTV) will completely swamp them with libel suits.

A cricket chirps...

Re:BARRATRY!

[slantyyz]

But the greed here is incredible. Where do people get this notion that they have a legally enforceable right to make a profit off a bad business model?

The dot-com boom probably provided some inspiration.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Zeinfeld]

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

The case is under appeal, the judge is clearly a jerk who was simply looking to get the case out of his court.

Awarding the attorney costs in this instance indicates malice on the part of the judge. Attorney costs are awarded so rarely that an award of this amount for a case thrown out before trial stinks.

The fact that cases have now gone to trial and been dismissed demonstrates that there is a problem with the original demand letter.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Zeinfeld]

Looking at the article a little more closely, it does not say directly but the equipment concerned is being sold as a satelite TV decoder device. The programmer has been modified to 'unloop' cards. It has been modified for the purposes of hacking.

The story would not read quite as well if these facts were more prominent. The DMCA is a royal pain, but it does exist and if you are going to buy hacking gear you have to do so in a way that protects you.

Given my list of past clients, jobs etc I could probably buy anything and prove that I was using it legitimately under one of the 'research' clauses. Even so I am very careful to make sure I have documented proof of the purpose for having each item.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Geek of Tech]

That's great and all, but if they bring you to court like the letters say they will (if you don't pay) that becomes very public.

Re:BARRATRY!

[BJZQ8]

Take them to court...har!...at which time you will be legally cornholed by a phalanx of suited rats, all spewing wads of legalese. That and of course the legendary greased palm of the judiciary system, and political "help." You don't stand a chance of defending yourself of buying a Smartcard reader than if you try to defend your legitimate use of P2P file sharing.

Re:BARRATRY!

[dvdeug]

if I go to your neighbors' doors and say "I think TheCarp is a soulless child molesting felon" there's nothing they can do because of the "I think" part.

Nonsense. Stating a fact as an opinion doesn't change its nature as libel. You are trying to destroy the reputation of someone else with falsehoods. That's the essence of libel, and whether or not it's stated as an opinion doesn't matter.

Re:BARRATRY!

[werdna]

It seems that doing lawsuits en masse, by definition, are objectively baseless. If they analyze each case and make an objective decision then I wouldn't see it is barratry.

In the U.S., large corporations are sued by a kazillion plaintiffs in a single suit, often allegeing that entire classes of people suffered an identical injury. Such class actions are not considered inherently evil, though many class members may not be entitled to relief at all. There exist procedural grounds, often quite difficult to overcome, by which a single plaintiff can sue a kazillion defendants as a class. Neither procedural vehicle requires as a precondition that all the individual cases are resolved and determined before the suits are filed.

That these are handled in the present case as a kazillion suits instead of one doesn't change the analysis or make inherently wrong any of these efforts to remedy what some people consider to be a civil wrong.

But if they just get a mailing list of people that have bought these things and fire off these threats indiscriminantly then they ARE going to be wrong sometimes and they are objectively baseless in the sense that they didn't even make a reasonable effort to determine if an individual accusation is baseless.

Maybe, maybe not. I would think that characterizing all mass lawsuits en masse as objectively baseless is probably objectively baseless.

Devil is always in the details -- look to the merits, stop making broad and general statements. Being wrong within an allegation doesn't make it objectively baseless, that is a sham.

I am not suggesting either that this particular action is silly or reasonable -- just that the generalization is inappropriate, and that the structure of the suit is not, by itself, necessarily problematic. We are a nation grounded in the right to petition, which includes that right to sue -- so long as the SOLE reason isn't to harm people -- even if the principal and guiding reason is to do so. That's just the way it is. And quite possibly the way it should be.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Phillip Birmingham]

Pretty soon, not only are you getting the regular fees from your ordinary subscribers, you also own the pirate decoder market as well.

LOL! Genius! Pure genius!

Re:BARRATRY!

[MrLint]

Please recall the MPAA vs DeCSS. (aka DoJ vs that kid) It was basically argued that if you had DeCSS the *only* thing you could possibly use it for was to pirate dvds. YA false argument fed to us. They dont want to go thru the trouble of actually proving any allegations, that would mean that their cases would see the light of day and be destroyed by it like a blood sucking vampires.

Have any of the alleged dmca cases gone to court other than adobe's? I haven't heard of many that made it to the jury phase. The best way to keep a bad law from being tested is to keep it away from a jury.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Theatetus]

Now remember, these 'pirates' are paying, they're just paying lump sums instead of recurring fees, and they're paying them to someone else. That's the problem, from DTVs point of view, if they would just look at it clearly.

Wish I still had mod points, but you're already at +5 anyways. Bingo. DTV's subscription model is being undercut by a cheaper competitor. The free market still works.

Re:BARRATRY!

[MentholMoose]

DirecTV are sending signals to my house and they get mad when I actually do something with them. If they don't want me to do this, then they shouldn't freakin send them to me!

Re:BARRATRY!

[fred911]

"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."

Untill a suit if filed in a court. Then it is public record. Sad thing is damage claims like this must be proved.

"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."

Only if the statement isn't true.

Re:BARRATRY!

[truesaer]

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

I think you've made a bit of a leap here. The meaning of the second amendment is certainely up for debate, but it refers to the right to bear arms at part of a militia. I also doubt the founding fathers intended for it to cover assault rifles given the fact that they were still using single shot muskets back then. Who knows, maybe they would have wanted us to all carry AK-47s, but that isn't clear at ALL.

I generally don't favor gun control, I'm just saying that as they go the 2nd amendment is "weak" and the correct interpretation for today is unclear.

Re:BARRATRY!

[teval]

Or..

Switch from an open standard to a proprietary standard. If you're lazy enough to use an open standard and don't have the security built into it, then you really do deserve to get this. DTV deserves a class action lawsuit, what they're doing is like RIAA suing everyone who owns a cdwriter, or who connects to kazza. And.. I'm sure there are laws against this, though thankfully I'm in Canada :)

Re:BARRATRY!

[digitalunity]

The DMCA is a special case, and isn't(probably) a precedent in this case. The DMCA would only apply to smart card writers if that was their primary purpose. Seeing that there are a number of good uses for smart card writers, the DMCA might not apply. One of the reasons DeCSS was on shaky ground was the fact that there are only two uses for it: copying + reading DVD's. If a sufficient number of defendants go to court with proof that they used the device for something other than pirating sat signals, it will set precedent for the rest of the cases to get thrown out before even reaching trial. Remember: If this was to be litigated soley based on the DMCA, DirecTV would likely have sued and shut down all of the smart card programmer manufacturers.

This smart card users vs. DirectTV should be far more interesting. You're right about one thing: Most of those 9,000 cases won't go to court. I'm betting most will be settled, probably for less than they are asking. Most people don't have the time or money to persue litigation in a federal court.

Re:BARRATRY!

[bjtuna]

Maybe if you had balls, you'd be king, too.

Nah, I liked the way I said it better.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Lectrik]

The only Pirate Devices I don't think I could argue the definition of woul be a Parrot, a Wooden Leg, an Eye Patch, a Funny hat with skull and cross bones, a wine bottle wrapped in dried grasses, a sword, potentially a mustache?

I have an Eye patch and a funny hat with a skull and crossbones on it, also have a (plastic) sword.
Feh, at least they pay me enough to dress like that for work

Re:BARRATRY!

[mindmaster064]

I'd just like to say, this is a damn good scam. :) (still laughing) Or better yet, add some bonus porn channels for the card buying geeks out there for incentive.

Re:BARRATRY!

[RipCurl808]

"(1) There is probable cause. Federal statutes prohibit the possession of "Pirate Devices" (see 47 U.S.C. section 521 et. seq. and 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq.). There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices. The fact that a small percentage of buyers did use them some people use them for legit purposes does not change the fact that virtually all of the purchasers were stealing signals." Then the federal government should be prosecuting sony, jvc, panasonic, hitachi, pioneer, etc for making: Dvd recorders VHS recorder CD Writers Smart Cards Writable discs Floppy disc drives floppy discs HELL EVEN the Xerox/Copy machine, since all of the above, as defined by the "pirate devices" are "pirate devices". It was also this same Federal Govt that ruled on the side of VCR manufacturers that even if the item is use 99% for piracy and only 1% for its legit "real" use, then it couldn't be considered a "pirate device".

Re:BARRATRY!

[NoodleSlayer]

What would it be then if I post of Slashdot that you're a soulless satan worshipping ballbag?

Re:BARRATRY!

[mpe]

Federal statutes prohibit the possession of "Pirate Devices" (see 47 U.S.C. section 521 et. seq. and 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq.). There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices. The fact that a small percentage of buyers did use them some people use them for legit purposes does not change the fact that virtually all of the purchasers were stealing signals.

The thing is that this is not a case of law enforement going after people who have bought these devices and confiscating them as illegal to posess. Instead you have a private company getting hold of another company's customer details.

This sounds rather questionable.

Comparing with their own customer list then sending out demands for money where they get a match.

Intentional malice is going to be impossible to prove. Does Directv give a damn about any of these people, except for the information that they uncovered in busting the distributors?

Since they are not law enforcement what business do they have using some other company's customer details. At best they are unethical at worst they are themselves enguaging in IP violations.

Lovely slashbot crying. Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief.

It's called "Innocent until proven guilty".

Re:BARRATRY!

[mpe]

Just because a knife can be used to kill someone, doesn't mean it's a MURDER DEVICE. So why is a smart card programmer a PIRATE DEVICE?

If someone advocated the banning of kitchen knives because they have been used as murder weapons then quite probably his/her sanity would be called into question. "Murder weapons" are not illegal, the definition would probably cover just about every tool ever invented, what is illegal is the action of murder.
Yet we have such nonsense as "burglar tools", "pirate devices", etc being considred illegal to posess.

The only Pirate Devices I don't think I could argue the definition of woul be a Parrot, a Wooden Leg, an Eye Patch, a Funny hat with skull and cross bones, a wine bottle wrapped in dried grasses, a sword, potentially a mustache?

A modern pirate is more likely to posess a fast boat and firearms.

Re:BARRATRY!

[letxa2000]

In the U.S., large corporations are sued by a kazillion plaintiffs in a single suit, often allegeing that entire classes of people suffered an identical injury. Such class actions are not considered inherently evil, though many class members may not be entitled to relief at all.

Yes, but in those cases many plaintiffs joint together in a class action suit against a single company accusing it of a single bad behavior that effected all of them. You can't reverse it and say, therefore, a corporation has the right to sue en masse many individuals they accuse of similar "crimes." I.e., the class action suit is based on the assumption that the bad behavior of a corporation affected many plaintiffs--the corporation is singularly accused of the crime, but there are many plaintiffs. In this case, there is a single plaintiff and they are accusing many people of a crime. Not the same thing.

Even so, in a class action lawsuit I believe that once the corporation is found guilty and monetary damages are established, relief is granted to each plaintiff on a case by case basis and that is when the plaintiff may get little or nothing if they have no claim to relief. But that happens once the corporation has been found guilty of the accusation. Here, DirecTV is demanding $3500 without even determining in court whether you are guilty.

There exist procedural grounds, often quite difficult to overcome, by which a single plaintiff can sue a kazillion defendants as a class. Neither procedural vehicle requires as a precondition that all the individual cases are resolved and determined before the suits are filed.

Can you cite that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of anything like that. And it seems wrong. If this is the case, why doesn't the RIAA use this tactic?

That these are handled in the present case as a kazillion suits instead of one doesn't change the analysis or make inherently wrong any of these efforts to remedy what some people consider to be a civil wrong.

I would say that sending threatening letters and demanding payment of $3500 or the risk of prosecution in federal court to people that may OR MAY NOT be huilty is inherently wrong, is extortion, and should be illegal. It's a big company bullying individuals. If they have evidence of guilt, sue that person. But DirecTV is going on a fishing expedition.

Being wrong within an allegation doesn't make it objectively baseless, that is a sham.

It does make it objectiveley baseless and a sham if the allegation is made without any due diligence in determining whether the allegation is correct. If I broke the law, sue me. But to assume that I broke the law because I purchased something that can be used to break the law is a fishing expedition.

We are a nation grounded in the right to petition, which includes that right to sue -- so long as the SOLE reason isn't to harm people -- even if the principal and guiding reason is to do so.

How can you actually believe that? I agree that we have the right to sue people that harm us. But I don't think it is written anywhere that we have the right to sue anyone that we think may have harmed us or could have harmed us had they wanted to without having some significant evidence that suggests someone actually DID harm us.

The problem here is that DirecTV is taking the purchase of devices that have legal uses as "evidence" of harm. That's BS because they can't prove what the device was used for. As it has been said, a cable descrambler has only one use and its illegal. These ISO smartcard programmers DO have legal uses so to use the purchase of said device as evidence of intent to steal DirecTV's signal is absurd. They should need to provide something more substantial in the way of evidence before being allowed to bully consumers and launch frivolous lawsuits... and they frivolous not in that the crime they allege is unimportant, it's frivolous because they don't have sufficient evidence to prov

Re:BARRATRY!

[Hittite Creosote]

but if I go to your neibors door and when he answers I tell him you are a soulless satan worshipping ballbag...thats slander.

I wonder - where's the line drawn between slander and abuse? If you declare that the innocent neighbour of being a kiddie-fiddler, that's slander. If you describe him as being a whining piece of shit, surely that's just abuse - so now, could your lawyer argue that when you described the neighbour as a satan-worshipper, you were just being abusive?

Re:BARRATRY!

[liquidsin]

One time this guy with a wooden leg tried to convince me that he wasn't a pirate, but I still made him walk the diving boar...er...plank. Shoved him right into the pool, I did.

Re:BARRATRY!

[LIGAFF]

I love reading dozens of posts screaming BARRATRY at the top! Does anyone know in what decade the last barratry case against a large corporation was heard? How about the last one to reach a verdict? The last one that the large corporation lost? IANAL, so I don't know these things.

Re:BARRATRY!

[ajs318]

Are you related to the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork, by any chance?

I like your scheme. Goes along the lines of you can't con an honest person => anyone who falls victim to a con-trick had some dishonest intention.

I'm trying to think of a historical example of someone trying to fool people into thinking they were doing something dishonest. No joy so far, but I'm sure someone else will point one out.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Lt Razak]

$4.99 more for local channels, tru. My Tivo can handle the local channels for free. (not to mention that local channels isn't supported by directTV for my city til December)

Re:BARRATRY!

[SpaceJunkie]

As a serious robot developer(check my url/sig) I commonly use different formats of storage. Smartcards are small and sometimes convenient - and as such i own a number of readers.
They are not in any way pirate devices. By that same argument any DCE/DTE combination is a pirate device - which ir rubbish.
Now I do not subscribe to Cable/Satellite TV of any kind, and seriously resent the implication that my activities are that of pirating. Okay - living in the UK I am not affected by this attack directly, apart from my ability to purchase smart card readers and products. Which would impede my research and usage of a particular technology.
To be honest, someone who tries to imply a standard used for many things (like many recent banking cards, identity cards etc) is only useful for pirating cable is a very small minded person indeed. Maybe they are trying to make their dying buck in the face of business swiped by net exchanging of programs. After all - who would want to subscribe when movies can be bought/hired on DVDs - without the crap and cheaper than cable subs, or downloaded with some software.
If someone is goin to pirate - why go to the trouble of getting cable and hacking that, when a broadband connection and bittorrent is probably going to get more of the movies they want- and less of the high volume ads they dont.
Heres to hoping there efforts will see them countersued by many legitamate smart card users - robot builders and engineers and such.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Arker]

Are you related to the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork, by any chance?

No, who's that?

I'm trying to think of a historical example of someone trying to fool people into thinking they were doing something dishonest. No joy so far, but I'm sure someone else will point one out.

That's because all the really good examples were never discovered. ;)

Re:BARRATRY!

[grolaw]

I'd like to see the suits before attacking them.

I know of one instance in which a firm brought several actions in the US District Ct. for the WD MO and when they had the computer assign a judge they liked to one of the cases they moved to consolidate all of the prior actions with the favored judge (you don't have a change of judge as of right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

Bringing 9000 cases isn't new - we call them class actions or complex multi-party litigation. If they have brought the actions in the court where the company is domiciled (as opposed to each jurisdiction where the tort occurred) then there is nothing improper (or unusual) procedurally.

Consider the cost of 9000 new case filings at $150.00 each as opposed to the cost of filing 1 case with 9000 defendants at $150.00.

Costs are a major factor where you have 9000 cases all across the US. A major cost is retaining local counsel and arranging to have your lead counsel admitted pro hac in every jurisdiction. I'd estimate that cost at $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 per jurisdiction as a starting point.

I'd guess that an action could be brought under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 et seq., a/k/a the DMCA for violation of the reverse engineering component of the statute. The same issue is presently in litigation in the U.S. District Ct. for the ED Kentucky in Lexmark v. Static Control, Case NO. 02-571-KSF.

The issue in the Lexmark case is the chip in replacement ink cartridges manufactured without a license by Static Control. Of course, Lexmark has been prudent enough to sue the manufacturer rather than the end users...but the issues are different where each user may have unauthorized access to pay-per-view IP.

The history of cable television theft and the mechanisms that the providers have gone to to identify and (usually settle) with pirates is rich, indeed. Manhattan's cablevision detected a variation of their code in the code in firmware in pirate decoders. They arranged to kill service to non-conforming decoders during some big event and the idiots who were infringing called up the company to complain - where they were met with very understanding people at a phone bank who recorded them, their calling number, and obtained from the callers their name, address, phone number and a description of the "problem". Needless to say, almost all of the pirates settled after their little faux pas of complaining that their stolen service stopped working!

If the smart card service has a similar variation, I suspect that the cases will stand.

Finally, Barratry is the fine art of ambulance chasing, i.e. attempting to influence people who are not a party to litigation to sue and hire you. Aside from the TV and print ads about the rights of the injured in general and how the firm won't take money until you recover . . .the prohibited practice is contacting a victim or potential litigant where you have no prior business contact and soliciting them to hire you for legal representation.

That's not the issue here.

Re:BARRATRY!

[demigod]

Not only did these people get screwed out of $3500 each, they got screwed out of another $14000 each trying to fight the company.

Yet another example where they would have been better off spending their money on hit men, instead of lawyers.

Re:BARRATRY!

[cyclist1200]

Building encryption and authentication software for businesses that require a secure network?

Re:BARRATRY!

[hesiod]

> It's called "Innocent until proven guilty".

I agree with your post, but Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal cases. Civil cases (lawsuits) just require burden of proof (jury is >50% sure), not 100% proof. I understand you may know this already, I just wanted to point this out, as IUPG is a common phrase used to mean absolute proof.

Re:BARRATRY!

[SillySlashdotName]

The websites the devices are purchased from are dedicated to piracy.

I think that is the crux of the matter, and where the greatest wrong is being done.

I went to google and searched on "smart card programmer", followed the links to find a low price and placed an order. So now I am a pirate because of the website offering the low price is "dedicated to piracy"? (by the way, I do have a parrot.)

As far as your "anal-ogy", if I needed a specific knife available at cooking supply stores as well as your "death store", and it was cheaper at the "death store - (what the hell is that, anyway?!?), then I would be better off buying it from the "death store", and ignoring the description on the knife.

By the way, an 8" chef knife is "long enough to hit the heart of a 250 lb man." Now that I have used that description for an 8" chef knife, does anyone who owns such a knife need to keep it out of their kitchen? As you said, it is not PROOF of murder, but it is not a kitchen knife either. Oh wait, it IS a kitchen knife.

I also went to the hardware store and bought a pair of pliers. can anyone tell me what I am going to do with them? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

FWIW, they are being used IN THE KITCHEN to crack crab legs.

As I said before, that's still not proof you murder people, but it's not a kitchen knife either.

If you use the knife in the kitchen, then it IS a kitchen knife, no matter what the origin or description. And you are correct, it is not proof of murder - just as where someone buys anything is not proof of how they intend to use it, and definitely not proof that they ever used it in an inappropriate way.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Transcendent]

You're mistaken.

There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices.

No... these are NOT pirate devices anymore than a CD burner.

The fact that a small percentage of buyers did use them some people use them for legit purposes does not change the fact that virtually all of the purchasers were stealing signals.

Where are your facts? You sound like you started this lawsuit. Do you have substantial evidence on ALL parties to PROVE that any significant percentage used these in an illegal manner?

Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief.

Suddenly everybody is a thief who own any sort of technical device? I'm a programmer... does that mean that I write viri or pirate others software?

Re:BARRATRY!

[Hognoxious]

Ankh-Morpork operates a one man, one vote system: there's one vote, and the Patrician is tha man who has it.

It's from Pratchett's Discworld books.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Lazaru5]

I don't know the source of your .sig, but you do know that Wolverine's first appearance was in The Hulk and he did in fact hold his own (the Hulk is a little dim-witted.)

Re:BARRATRY!

[Hognoxious]

Unless the 'armed law enforcement officers' (RTFA,FFS) were there by chance, or are maybe psychic, it would appear that your 2 pertaining to slander above has occurred.

Also, it's interesting to note that the letters come 'through a local law firm'. Smells like an admission that it's fraud, just making sure that it's not interstate fraud, which is a Federal, and therefore more serious offence IIRC.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Pharmboy]

There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices.

I believe the standard is "substantial legal uses" which a card reader has. If the card readers had a ROM that automatically updated the card to receive DTV, then your arguement would hold water. However, there are substantial legal uses for card readers/programmers, not the least of which is "education" or for legal reverse engineering. The readers are generic devices, NOT specific devices for the sole reason to pirate DTV.

Because the majority of people who use these card readers are using them for illegal purposes (just a guess) does NOT take away the fact that they have substantial legal purposes.

Another example: if you have an AR-15 (the civilian equivelent of a M16) and a fully automatic receiver that is NOT installed, you have a legal weapon. Its only when you combine the two are they illegal. If you find the card reader with BasicH or setup with other software for programming DTV cards, or with similar evidence, THEN you have illegal use and possession of a pirating device.

Card readers don't steal DTV. People steal DTV.

Re:BARRATRY!

[beebware]

Only if it wasn't true.

Re:BARRATRY!

[mkldev]

Actually, it does -not- have to be public. Most people make this mistake. In fact, if only a single person other than the person prosecuting, that person's lawyer(s), and the defendant and his/her lawyer(s) sees it, then the prosecution has engaged in libel, according to the courts.

Put another way, if a secretary stuck the letter in the envelope, the company might as well have put a gun to their heads and pulled the trigger, assuming that these claims really are false in a majority of cases. Of course, if most of these people really were stealing service, then that's another issue. This still strikes me as legally questionable behavior for a company to do something like this, though....

Re:BARRATRY!

[MrResistor]

I think you've made a bit of a leap here. The meaning of the second amendment is certainely up for debate, but it refers to the right to bear arms at part of a militia. I also doubt the founding fathers intended for it to cover assault rifles given the fact that they were still using single shot muskets back then. Who knows, maybe they would have wanted us to all carry AK-47s, but that isn't clear at ALL.

It's quite clear to me. 'Arms' means only one thing: weapons meant for warfare. The specific meaning might change with the technology of the times, but the general meaning of the word has always meant 'military weapons'. 500 years ago that was a sword or a pike, 200 years ago that was a musket, today that's an assault rifle.

Also, nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the people can bear arms as long as they are part of a militia, it merely offers the militia as a reason why the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That the militia is merely a justification for the right is quite clear upon analysing the sentence.

Additionally, if you read any of the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is quite clear that they felt it was essential that the people be able to defend themselves from their government. As Ben Franklin put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

Re:BARRATRY!

[Syberghost]

Bullshit. If they thought it was truly extortion, they'd file a complaint with the police.

They were trying to get paid, and it backfired.

DirecTV is going to wind up in trouble over this, but people looking for a quick buck have no right to bitch just because DirecTV's hands aren't clean either.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Carnivorous Carrot]

Poor writing, my friend. Poor writing.

One little flick to Wolfie's adamantium skull, and all the flesh inside and off would be instantly pulverized off it, leaving a fresh, clean, shiny, and empty skull.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

"Lovely slashbot crying. Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief. Sure. Whatever."

So you are saying guilty until proven innocent?

Since when is human nature to steal? Or, when did the primary action of human nature become theft? I must have been sleeping.

Lastly, you can't be a theif for watching DirectTV, no matter how you obtained the signal. It is called copyright violations. You can't steal IP, only violate it.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

On top of all this, DirectTV is sending signals into MY house, and MY property. They will not even allow me to purchase the signals they are sending into MY property. If it isn't available for sale by whoever put it there, and its in my yard, then fuck whoever put it there. Their loss.

If you want to get into the law, my above post should clear up your misconceptions about copyright violation != theft.

Re:BARRATRY!

[balloonhead]

You obviously have never heard of the Pre-crime Police. They however have.

Re:BARRATRY!

[BigBadBri]

Great point, and love the sig.

Motto of the French Navy?

A'l'eau, c'est l'heure!

Re:BARRATRY!

[ogre2112]

There is a class-action suit in progress for people that have paid the "extortion" fee.

I tried looking for the link, but recently the keywords, "directv class-action" are very popular.

Re:BARRATRY!

[Sorthum]

Right, but the dealers that sell this thing do so for 20 bucks, as opposed to 90. So you could, in theory, do a search, find that one of these places saves you 70 bucks, and avoid the rapeage of the "legal" place.

Wow

[L. VeGas]

Guess I better not call them.

Why not?

[rosewood]

Well, if they can get a guy convicted for something he was planning to do and had not done it yet (and it wasn't murder) then why cant they sue people for things they haven't done?

I mean, its sick-twisted-wrong but it makes sense unfortunatly.

Re:Why not?

[sebmol]

Because you have to prove that he was indeed planning to steal the satellite signal. How DirecTV plans to do that escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe that there's any merit in these cases. DirecTV knows that too but is obviously willing to take advantage of the current FUD around piracy and copyright infringement. I wouldn't be surprised if more people like Sosa decided to cough up the $3500 instead of defend against the claims and cough up the most likely much higher legal fees.

Raids against the sites that sell them?!

[Gortbusters.org]

What happened to consumer privacy?! Sounds like an RIAA tactic to me!

Great!

[brakk]

This is exactly what we need to clog up out legal system! I guess the murderers and rapists can wait, someone's stealing TV!!!

Re:Great!

[BarryJacobsen]

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

Re:Great!

[Tackhead]

> This is exactly what we need to clog up out legal system! I guess the murderers and rapists can wait, someone's stealing TV!!!

It's worse than that. DirecTV is saying "Even the TV thieves can wait! There are people NOT stealing TV!"

Re:Great!

[feepness]

But if a company makes money, then everyone* profits!

*Your definition of everyone may vary from that of the US Senate and Large Corporations

You're right, not EVERYONE, just: shareholders, installers, salesmen, technicians, other employees, actors, taxpayers (can't tax a stolen signal), and those who have the integrity to pay for what they consume. In short, people going about their business who will honor contracts with those around them. It DOESN'T include people who steal TV signals or sell devices explicitly for doing so.

So absolutely right you are.

Re:Great!

[laugau]

You know what's funny is that we can go to prison for getting free cable and sattelite where we are punished by getting free satellite and cable.

Re:Great!

[CrowScape]

But what about those who buy from said people who sell devices explicity for doing so, and then turn around and uses those devices, which remember were explicity sold for stealing satelite, for something legal, like setting up a security system? Should they be sued? Isn't that guilt by association? It's not like it's at all hard to buy these things from a pirate site. Go to Yahoo and type in "smart card programmer" and you'll come across one of those said sites right off the bat. Some people simply take the path of least resistance when shopping. Now that's a cause to be hauled threatened with legal action?

Re:Great!

[CrowScape]

Ah, if I had Mod points they'd be yours. Insightful and Funny!

Re:Great!

[cyberjunkie98]

Hahaha.. in the meantime the murderers and rapists get to wait for trial getting 3 hots & a cot plus cable TV paid for by us.

Re:Great!

[Computer!]

Awesome.

Re:Great!

[bobbozzo]

Your tax dollars at work...

Re:Great!

[niko9]

I'd much rather have free cable and sattelite at home than free cable and sattelite in a pound me in the ass penitentiary . ;)

Samir! This America, nonone goes to prison!

Re:Great!

[Hittite Creosote]

Of course it can wait. No Senators get paid off when a murderer goes to jail.

But if you don't have any murderers in jail, who is the state governor going to have executed when he wants to show he's tough on crime?

Newsflash:

[TrollBridge]

There is a big difference between a smartcard reader (from the headline) and a smartcard programmer (from the article).

Is this sensationalism or an honest mistake?

Re:Newsflash:

[notsoanonymouscoward]

theres a plethora of legit uses for a smart card programmer... how could they attack so broadly?

Re:Newsflash:

[JeThR0]

My buddy bought a reader and got a letter a few months ago.

Re:Newsflash:

[Xciton]

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...

Re:Newsflash:

[TrollBridge]

I retract my previous statement if that's the case. I stand corrected, sir.

Re:Newsflash:

[hackstraw]

I used to program these guys, and this is the 1st time I've heard of a "smartcard programmer". So what is this big difference?

For a little background, smartcards vary greatly in how "smart" they are. In fact, the first smartcards used in DirectTV systems were simple memory cards that had little or no tampering protection (they may of had a checksum for the ID number, but thats it). People used to put new cards on their devices and simply become another customer.

Later versions used encryption and/or public/private keys, which were much more difficult to hack, but some of these too can be hijacked like a man in the middle attack by putting a device between the card and the reader, but this is rare.

Personally, I find this hilarious. Let them go around suing people for all I care. All of the burdon of proof is on them to prove that you were stealing thier service. That would be very difficult to attempt if the person they were sueing did not do anything, like the sucker in the article that just wrote them a check.

Re:Newsflash:

[ePhil_One]

Does this imply that I can expect a lawsuit from DirecTV? AmEx sent me two smart card readers/programers for my Amex Blue. Of course, Im also a happy DirecTiVo user who pays his bills. Anyone think they'll bother to cross reference the two lists? [Then again, I've seen several references to "pirates" who recommend maintain minimal service with DirecTV]

Re:Newsflash:

[harrkev]

Let them go around suing people for all I care. All of the burdon of proof is on them to prove that you were stealing thier service.

Perhaps, but go to court without a lawyer, and you will be skewered alive! The point of all this is that they chose a price that is LESS than that of hiring a lawyer to fight this. Paying them off is the cheapest way to go!

I hope that they go after the REAL pirates and sue them. But at least have some proof first!

We should all cancel our DirectTV service, if we have it. If not, then we should write them a nasty letter letting them know that we would now never use their service if it were free!

PS. Does anybody have any links to this story on American web sites? Before I write some letters, I would like confirmation that the Register story is legit from a major news organization.

Re:Newsflash:

[b.foster]

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...

Not necessarily, but it is true in this case. The "smart" programmers favored by DSS thieves have extra logic that glitches the card's supply voltage and clock line to circumvent the card's security. That is the major (legal) distinction.

One of my neighbors used to brag all the time about having this sort of setup, but he was none too happy when the sheriff's department nailed him for selling hacked cards and then turned over his customer list to DTV for lawsuit purposes. I guess there is justice in this world.

Re:Newsflash:

[dknj]

its a specific type of smart card programmer to bypass the security on dtv cards

-dk

Re:Newsflash:

[perky]

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...

Are you saying that the Towitoko chipDrive readers sitting on my desk are illegal? They contain a couple of PIC microcontrollers which talk to the driver using their own protocol. The APDUs are sent to the reader within a higher level protocol, hence they are not "dumb ISO programmers" as you define it. As far as I remember, most other readers operate in a similar fashion, and hence require a certain amount of logic in a device driver on the host. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Target card

[gouldtj]

Damn it! I knew I should have read the fine print when I applied for that Target card - but I didn't realize it was going to cost me $3500! Get a free smartcard reader

Re:Target card

[brakk]

I've got one for my AMEX Blue. Better go burn it before they find me!

Re:Target card

[stratjakt]

They're both the same thing, you insensitive clod.

Re:Target card

[bofkentucky]

are they suing sun...all the new blade worstations at sun training had smartcard readers (and writers?) built in to the workstation, solaris 9 can use keyswipe authentication

Re:Target card

[interiot]

Fuckin' sweet. Are there linux drivers for it yet?

Re:Target card

[malfunct]

I think the missing fact here is that the readers in question have extra circuitry for "glitching" a card and thus bypassing any of the tamper-proof protection mechanisms. The reader/programmer from sun/amex/target does not have this extra circuitry and could not be used (without changes) to reprogram a DirecTV card.

Re:Target card

[Mr.Sharpy]

No, they sent letters to people that bought regular ISO programmers too. I got one! Lucky me. The damn fools.

SmartCard Readers? They are suing..

[linuxislandsucks]

SmartCard readers? They are suing the DoD?

For cryin' out loud...

[scaife]

IANAL, but isn't this a little illegal? The smartcard readers don't actually steal service unless programmed to and then used to do so. Otherwise, aren't they just standard burners? That's like making it illegal to buy a knife because someone killed another person with it.

Re:For cryin' out loud...

[Gossy]

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.

Re:For cryin' out loud...

[reallocate]

Nope. Over the top, perhaps, but bringing suit, or lots of 'em, is not illegal.

Re:For cryin' out loud...

[sebmol]

It is illegal to abuse the legal system to cause damage to legal entities by filing suits with no merit. That's why a class action law suit may actually have a chance in this case.

Re:For cryin' out loud...

[Alien Being]

If DirecTV loses a few cases because they don't have any evidence that the person used the device illegally, then wouldn't the rest of the cases become frivolous?

Re:For cryin' out loud...

[Hentai]

No, because this is a corporate entity, not a person. It's far more like suing everyone who ever bought a gun because someone robbed a bank with one.

Re:For cryin' out loud...

[fscking_coward_2001]

It could happen. Cities in the US have already attempted to gain extra revenue ... um, sue ... gun manufacturers just because they made the gun that someone used to hurt someone.

BackFire

[gizmonic]

Damn, I could have cared less about Satellite TV, since I have decent cable access w/ broadband that actually works.

But that pisses me off enough that I might just go out and pirate Direct TV simply out of spite!

Re:BackFire

[exhilaration]

Or better yet, figure out how to jam DirectTV's satellites. Wasn't there a story on Slashdot a few days ago about that? Jam them for 30 minutes during the highest-rated sitcom from some random location, then pack up your equipment and do it again from somewhere else a few days later.

Permanently jamming the signal is difficult and will probably result in getting tracked down. But doing it randomly will annoy the hell out of millions of viewers.

Re:BackFire

[gamgee5273]

Now, why would you want to annoy us? For the record - my choice was Comcast or DirecTV. I chose the one that hasn't been driving me nuts for years - DirecTV.

The RIAA business strategy

[wayward_son]

1. Sue everyone.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

They just kind of forgot that giant corporations suing ordinary people isn't too popular.

Re:The RIAA business strategy

[eyeball]

1. Sue everyone.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

No, these aren't gnomes, they're trolls, who are much better at business:

1. Profit.
2. Sue everyone.
3. Profit more.

So who paid cash?

[tjwhaynes]

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

Re:So who paid cash?

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:So who paid cash?

[Thavius]

This sounds like one of those cases where paying cash for 'grey' goods is a smart move.

Smartcard reader/programmers are now suddenly "grey" because they can be used for illegal activities? Holy cow, that means EVERYTHING is "grey." A pencil can be used to break a copyright, a baseball bat can be used to vandalize, a vehicle can be used to help rob a bank. All of these are now "grey" goods because they have the possibility of being used to break the law.

That's all we need, more companies calling us criminals for things we have the possibility of doing.

Re:So who paid cash?

[morcheeba]

You'll have to do more than just pay cash. You'll have to either buy it in person, or rent a PO box with a false ID. But this is a legal product and you shouldn't have to go to great lengths to buy it. Otherwise, you'd be careful buying cutlery, cd burners, ethernet cards, NAT boxes, airplane tickets, and renting Ryder trucks.

Re:So who paid cash?

[GreyPoopon]

I have 2 smartcard programmers.

But did you buy them from a "pirate" website? That's the leverage that DirecTV is using. They have convinced the judge that since people are buying products from known pirate sites that are advertised specifically for stealing DirecTV, it can be implied that the devices are being used to steal their signal.

If you bought different programmers from another source, you have nothing to worry about.

Re:So who paid cash?

[oni]

AREN'T there better uses of time, like gee, protecting our borders?

I agree. DirectTV should get back to protecting our boarders!

Re:So who paid cash?

[harryk]

From the article, they've already been to court and lost. Sosa was one of five of the co-plaintiffs that have now been stuck with an additional $100k in legal fees. The decision is being appealed but doesn't mean it'll get over turned. It seems kinda late for someone to try and fight 'after' they already payed.

This Sosa guy really makes a bad case for anyone else. He's a doctor with money, his loss!

I was thinking about a similar setup with smart card verification for server access, to release the keyboard, and use it as the login. now I have to rethink this idea.

No good.

Re:So who paid cash?

[Threni]

"But did you buy them from a "pirate" website? That's the leverage that DirecTV is using"

So? Suppose you bought lights for growing plants from a mail order place which is clearly targetted at people growing cannabis, but you use them to grow tomatoes? There's nothing wrong with buying or using them to grow tomatoes. DirecTV is just using that trick because they want any leverage they can in proving they were being used for piracy. But I can't see what the problem would be, any more than buying blank CDs from a site selling game copying software shows you`re about to pirate games. A cheap source of disks is a cheap source of disks.

Re:So who paid cash?

[WTF Wazzat]

You have hit the nail squarely and firmly. All those things and nearly anything else could be used for illegal purposes, and the time seems to be coming when some creature such as Homeland Security, or RIAA, or some asshat company's asshat lawyers may jump out of the bushes at any moment for any reason, real or contrived, and force you to defend yourself.

Re:So who paid cash?

[Guppy06]

"(there is little enough on telly to warrant much more than basic cable for the occassional sporting event)"

I don't know about your area, but around here basic DirecTV service is actually cheaper than basic cable from Cox.

I can sue your for anything!

[Creepy Crawler]

I'm going to sue slashdot for making me view ads. prolly wont win, but I can sue.

They're doing the same thing. They're finding records for people who bought this stuff with a credit card and then S.L.A.P.P.ing them with a lawsuit.

Whether DirecTV can prove the allegations is yet another thing altogether. Of course, it reinforces you pay with cash for "sensitive" goods.

Re:I can sue your for anything!

[fredklein]

They're finding records for people who bought this stuff with a credit card and then S.L.A.P.P.ing them with a lawsuit.


Wonder what would happen if someone bought one of these and then sent a letter to DirecTV, demanding that they be sued.

Would DirecTV actually do it?

Re:I can sue your for anything!

[Creepy Crawler]

>>>Wonder what would happen if someone bought one of these and then sent a letter to DirecTV, demanding that they be sued.

Well? Whats your name and address? ;-)

Re:I can sue your for anything!

[SonicBurst]

In a somewhat similar vein, why not simply sue DTV for the very same reason they're suing you? They've got to have readers/programmers as well, right? Well, surely they MUST be using them to steal programming! Jesus Christ...this country has gone to hell.

Re:Good for them.

[Mongo222]

I assume you use a knife for eating your dinner. Since we all know a knife can be used for stabing people you are guilty of stabing people wheither you ever stabed anyone or not! Report to your nearest jail! You are guilty of murder!

so...

[bani]

...if someone's name is falsely or erroneously in one of these vendor's lists...?

CD Burners

[LauraW]

Next thing you know, the RIAA is going to sue everyone who's ever bought a CD burner. People might be using them to duplicate music CD's, after all, and that's (gasp!) illegal.

-- Laura

Re:CD Burners

[Im-no-orangutan]

hey don't give them any ideas~

Re:CD Burners

[c4Ff3In3 4ddiC]

People might be using them to duplicate music CD's, after all, and that's (gasp!) illegal.

What do you mean? Thats the only reason I bought a CD burner.

Re:CD Burners

[rootofevil]

yea, and if you got anything faster than a 1x, say a 52x theyd sue you for having 52 cd burners, like the BSA claimed to find.

Re:CD Burners

[ReelOddeeo]

People might be using them to duplicate music CD's, after all, and that's (gasp!) illegal.

I'm not so sure that duplicating a CD is illegal. This is known as a backup copy. Oh, you meant in quantity for distribution? That's a different matter.

You definitely have the right under some audio home recording act or other, to make a cassette tape of an LP for playing in your car. So why would this be different?

Re:CD Burners

[hackstraw]

They already tax the media, so thier making money one way or the other.

Re:CD Burners

[frodo from middle ea]

Well I bought mine to make backups of photos i shoot.
I am not a pro , but i shoot in raw/tiff mode, and each file is about 3-10 MB. Just one trip can fill 1/2GB worth of pics.
For me backing it upon the CD is the cheapest option. I have burnt about 300 CDs till date, and not one of them with anything but my photos.
Yet I am aware that a certain percentage of CDRs sell goes to the music industry .

Re:CD Burners

[Anonymous Coward]

-- Laura

i respond to you, because you are girl

Re:CD Burners

[atrader42]

This isn't as remote as you might think...neither card programmers nor cd burners are necessarily being used illegally BUT if you get a letter from DirecTV/RIAA demanding a few thousands in return for no lawsuit, in order to not simply pay the money, you must be able to prove that you only used this device legitimately. To do that, you need to be able to pay a lawyer for as long as the company is able to drag out the case. In other words, if you're not rich, you can't win the suit, so the RIAA/DirecTV can get away with this.

Re:CD Burners

[cristofer8]

innocent until proven guilty. the burden of proof is on directv. THEY must prove that you used it illegally, otherwise you can countersue to recover the lawyer's fees.

Re:CD Burners

[indead]

If you buy the DVDs marked "data" I believe they do not get a share of those sales... I could be wrong, but I was told thats why they are cheaper.

Re:CD Burners

[indead]

Grah, I meant CD-Rs not DVDs... Love that preview button.

Re:CD Burners

[blitzoid]

You're kidding, right?

I was under the impression that in the American justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty. Is this not still true? I mean, shouldn't the RIAA/DirecTV have to prove that you DID use it illegally instead of you having to prove that you DIDN'T?

Re:CD Burners

[ca1v1n]

didn't they try suing burner manufacturers once?

Re:CD Burners

[ShavenYak]

Well, that's why DirecTV is SUING in civil court, rather than pressing criminal charges against all these people. DirecTV is claiming that a breach of contract occurred, not accusing them of a crime. While the burden of proof in theory should still be on them, if you go into that court without at least the ability to prove you've paid for all the services you've received, you're going to be forking over some bucks.

Luckily, it seems that shouldn't be very difficult, if you have all your cancelled checks and/or credit card statements.

Re:CD Burners

[wannasleep]

I don't think so... you know who the makers of CD burners are? Large corporations who have the power to fight back. Not only, in some cases they would even be fighting themselves (e.g. Sony which is a hardware maker and a member of RIAA, etc).
Doesn't it seem strange to you that VCRs and CD/DVD buners have never been targeted, but P2P has? Does it seem strange to you that in the US gun makers can not be sued, but Kazaa can?
In many countried it is called corruption, here it is called lobbying. The difference? In one case you buy enforcement and low level pubblic officials, in the other legislators.....

Re:CD Burners

[kannibal_klown]

In criminal matters, yes. But in civil matters, it's a whole new ballgame.

In criminal court, the prosecutor has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that you committed the crime in question. The defense (suspect) then just has to rebuff the supposed evidence.

In civil court, the defendant has to prove that he/she should not be sued (either because they are innocent or the suit has not merit). In this case, Joe Sixpack has to prove that he isn't using the sc reader illegally or convince the judge/jury that the lawsuit is frivellous. The plaintif (DirectTV) just has to make a reasonable argument and say why their suing the defendant (evidence helps here too, but the pressue is off them and on the defendent).

Amazing what watching constant reasons of Law & Order and The Practive teaches ya ;)

Re:CD Burners

[GreyPoopon]

I was under the impression that in the American justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty. Is this not still true?

Of course it's still true. The problem here is that it'll cost you more than the $3500 proposed settlement to go to court and watch DirecTV fail to prove your guilt... unless you happen to be an attorney.

Re:CD Burners

[pogle]

I'm lucky I've only got my 2x burner then! Whew, I knew it was a good idea versus a shiny new one.

Re:CD Burners

[iantri]

Not so in Canada, unfortunately. SOCAN (basically Canada's RIAA) has managed to get a 21 cent levy on ANY and ALL blank CD-Rs and a slightly smaller levy on all CD-RWs. They want to make it even higher, too. 59 cents per CD-R is what the bastards want.
CD-Rs are ALREADY too expensive in Canada.. a 10 pack of CD-Rs will set you back ~CDN$10, 25 pack of CD-Rs will set you back ~CDN$20, a 50 pack ~CDN$35-40.
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml
Canadian retailers aren't happy either, and big names like Wal-mart Canada and Radio Shack Canada are apart of the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access.

Re:CD Burners

[kmac06]

Dear rootofevil,

It has come to our attention that you are in possession of a 52x cd copier. This is obviously a device used to pirate our intellectual property. You can burn a full sized CD in approximately 10 minutes with this. In order to be sure that we lose no money from your piracy, we must assume that you have been using this 24/7 for one year. Therefore, you may make a check out to us for $17.99 for every CD you pirated. Please send us a check for $945,554.40 within one week, along with your illegal piracy tool, or we will be forced to sue for the $945,554.40, plus an extra $945,554.40 for every cd you stole, assuming you then distributed these cds to other pirates, who then copied them also, totalling a sum of $49,699,284,818.40.

Sincerely,
RIAA

Re:CD Burners

[cduffy]

I'm not so sure that duplicating a CD is illegal. This is known as a backup copy. Oh, you meant in quantity for distribution? That's a different matter.

So are you suggesting that purcase of high-capacity CD duplication equipment should be evidence of copyright infringement?

Damn, that'd throw a kink in the wheels of my friend's band.

Re:CD Burners

[ShavenYak]

I suppose for non-customers, there's probably some other legal justification for the lawsuit. The point was, they aren't pressing criminal satellite TV piracy charges against people - because if they did that, they'd have to have evidence to get arrest warrants and all that kind of stuff.

Re:CD Burners

[UnknowingFool]

That's a pretty good analogy. Smart cards have other uses besides DirecTV as do blank CDs. Admittedly, copying CD illegally is probably the main use for them, but in the mainstream they have other recognized uses (PhotoCDs, file transfers, etc). People who buy smart card programmers for legal reasions are more narrowly confined to hobbyists and inventor types.

Because there is a smaller population buying and using these devices, there is less public awareness and outrage. If the RIAA ever pulled this stunt, they would never survive the negative press. Not only that, CD Burner manufacturers (Pioneer, Sony, Plextor, etc) would probably get invovled because suing users would hurt their business.

Re:CD Burners

[Kelz]

Not neccesarily. If I understand it right the smartcard programmer/reader was created for the specific purpose of getting those PPVs free. CD burners are not used exclusively for duping music CDs (though RIAA lawyers somehow thing it differently). I might be wrong on this, but just my 2c.

--Kelz

Re:CD Burners

[Gorak]

OT, but when the US DoJ charges with you for posession of LSD-soaked blotter paper, they include the weight of the paper in the calculation of active doses.

Since an active dose is around 100 *micro*grams, anybody who gets busted with LSD *always* gets done for major trafficking.

It's fucked, but then so is the whole game.

Re:CD Burners

[Q2Serpent]

How do you know the parent is a girl?

--Melissa

Re:CD Burners

[LauraW]

i respond to you, because you are girl

Hey, that's my attitude too!

Re:CD Burners

[iantri]

The 21 cent levy is already in effect. The 59 cent levy is proposed and has not had a date set for when it will take effect.

Out of curiousity, where can you get CD-Rs that cheap? Are they of any decent quality?

Re:CD Burners

[atrader42]

That would be extremely nice and entirely true IF everyone could afford a good lawyer who could prove you didn't use your smarcard programmer illegally (and yes, that's how civil suits work. DirecTV would have a much harder time pulling something like this pressing charges). So, as cynical as this might sound, the best action Joe Smartcard can take for his own interest is to fork out $3500 and hope somebody comes up with a decent class action suit.

Outside their market?

[Malc]

Are they doing this to people outside their market, such as Canada? They're not allowed to sell their service here, but I know several people who have grey market equipment and have purchased a card programmer.

Re:Outside their market?

[Rotworm]

I don't know what DirecTV plans on doing. But recently in the Central Okanagan (BC) an internal memo was issued to all RCMP officers. The crux of the memo was *wink* *wink* "if you have any illegal sats, get rid of them." The actual language of the memo was more along the lines of "on X date, RCMP are to report all observations of non-canadian sat systems."

Re:Outside their market?

[Battle_Ratt]

The really funny thing is that you can legally use their signal because DirectTV is not a "Lawfull Distributor", they cannot hold you liable for stealing the service. It's like someone stealing stolen property. The "victim" can't really get anywhere with the courts, because he shouldn't have had it in the first place.

Re:Outside their market?

[|<amikaze]

Just recently, the laws in Canada have changed, moving it from gray area to definately illegal. In my town, there was at least a few cops that had to take down their dishes.

Whatever happened to ...

[ansak]

"Presumed innocent until proven guilty"? Or did that die along with "Racial profiling is bad" 20 months ago?

Re:Whatever happened to ...

[Mhrmnhrm]

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal actions brought by the state (ie. The People vs. Mr. Defendant). DirecTV is filing tort claims against the non-sheep, where the standards are much lower, and there isn't a innocent/guilty dichotomy.

Re:Whatever happened to ...

[sx10]

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal cases. In a civil lawsuit such as this the plaintiff only has to be slightly more convincing than the defendant. It's called "budern of proof by a preponderance of the evidence"

I'd rather be writing a sig...

Re:Whatever happened to ...

[mink]

" Hey, in Britain there's such a thing as "guilty despite proven innocent". Ask anyone who's ever been falsely accused of child molesting"

Ask any Pediatrician.

Dam!!!!

[ClaraBow]

The digital age is starting to suck--we can't do anything fun anymore!

Amex Blue

[chiph]

What about all those people with American Express Blue cards that got free readers?

Next thing you know, Kroger will be suing people who own Cue-Cats.

Chip H.

This happend to my uncle

[miyako]

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.

Re:This happend to my uncle

[tgd]

They have a lot to worry about if they cave without calling a lawyer.

Re:This happend to my uncle

[EricWright]

Not all of us have enough cash to hand a lawyer for a retainer. *I* can't just call up a lawyer and tell him to stick it to DirecTV. Not that I bought one of these smart card dealies... I recently moved and strongly considered DirecTV as a replacement for Time Warner Cable. Glad I didn't now.

Re:This happend to my uncle

[ShavenYak]

As many lawyers as there are now, surely you have an attorney friend of acquaintance that would take the time to type you up a nice letter telling DirecTV that unless they have some evidence that you have stolen their service, they'd be better advised to harass someone else. I mean, not all lawyers are so greedy they wouldn't take five minutes of time to help a friend. Just most of them.

If not, you might consider sending a letter in reply, perhaps including your history of payments to them, and asking them why they are accusing such a loyal customer of stealing their services without any evidence. Basically, DTV is just running this up the flagpole to see who salutes them with $3500 checks, I'd be surprised if they actually went into court against anyone without any evidence of infringement.

Re:This happend to my uncle

[EricWright]

Sorry, I don't associate with greedy lawyer types... not that I'm worried about this case, but send me a few names/numbers in case I have a future need arise! :)

Re:This happend to my uncle

[Metaldsa]

"Sorry, I don't associate with greedy lawyer types... not that I'm worried about this case, but send me a few names/numbers in case I have a future need arise! :)"

Not all lawyers are pieces of shit, only about 90%. My dad's best friend is a lawyer who defends doctors in medical malpractice suits (doctors do make accidents during their lifetime that shouldn't cost them $2 billion.) My dad owns a business and every couple of weeks someone threatens to sue. Only about once a year do they go through with it but having a friend as a lawyer to write you up a nice letter can save thousands of dollars. When you run apartment complexes then they are worth their weight in gold.

Re:This happend to my uncle

[jridley]

having a friend as a lawyer to write you up a nice letter can save thousands of dollars

I've never needed it, but a friend has told me that in the vast majority of cases, if some company is giving you hassles, paying $100 to a lawyer to draft a 10 minute letter will get them to cut it out IMMEDIATELY almost all the time.

He has done this several times; company jerks him around, won't give him info, won't do what they said, he has his laywer write a letter, suddenly they're all about customer service.

He's never had to go to court or anything; just getting a letter from a lawyer wakes people up and generally gets them to calm down/go away/leave you alone. They're looking for the soft targets, or just hoping you'll cave without talking to a lawyer.

Irritating that stuff like that is necessary, but it's the truth.

Re:This happend to my uncle

[babyrat]

made a call to his lawyer

Sounds expensive to me...

Maybe the smart card reader programmer companies should offer free legal services with every unit sold!

Re:This happend to my uncle

[Sabalon]

Wow...I just racked my brains and I can't think of one person I know who is a lawyer.

I know a couple people who may have started a law degree, but no one I know is actually a lawyer.

No wonder I feel so clean.

Class action

[L. VeGas]

I'm familiar with class action suits. Is there such a thing as class action defense?

They are gonna have a hard time....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[LordKronos]

Read it again..."COD", as in "Cash On Delivery". Meaning you pay the delivery person in cash when it's delivered (or in his example, when you pick it up at the UPS office). Assuming you can do a UPS COD pickup without showing ID (i've never tried), the only think you have to fear is the security video tape at the UPS office.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[Eccles]

Of course they will get your credit card number in those raids too and your bank will have your billing address...

Except that COD stands for "Cash On Delivery", and somehow I think anyone smart enough to have it shipped this way will pay actual cash. UPS might have some sort of subpeonable record, however.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[Jucius Maximus]

Oh, I thought COD was part of your address or something...

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[mixmasta]

you must have missed the "COD."

It means cash on delivery. I didn't know retailers/ups would do this kind of transaction but I will keep it in mind when I need privacy.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[ncc74656]

"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)"

Of course they will get your credit card number in those raids too and your bank will have your billing address...

Last time I checked, COD meant Cash On Delivery. UPS won't have a credit-card number to give to The Man, if they should come knocking.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[Goat of Death]

Do you happen to know what COD means? Cash On Delivery. Insert clue here... rewind.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[arf_barf]

I give you 100 bucks if you can name/link one company that ships programmers by COD :-)

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[Talking Goat]

"They are gonna have a hard time..."

See, because you were actually intelligent in going about purchasing this stuff. I can't tell you how many sob stories I've heard from people in the "hobby" about the "letter." In the last 2-3 years, the DTV hacking market just blew up bigtime, and there were tons of sites that were selling equipment. In the mad rush to beat the competition, a ton of these places actually started accepting credit cards. WTF... The standard had always been money orders, find a reputable dealer (that isn't base in the U.S. dummies!!), buy your stuff, and have it sent to a safe address.

Now you've got thousands of people with letters, dealers and fulfillment houses raided, and a bunch of dumb m***erf**kers that can't figure out how they got busted.

While I totally disagree with the tactics that DTV is employing, all I can say is what in the f**k do you guys expect?!?!

Simple fact is that the letters that these people got were not sent because they bought a generic smart card reader/writer. They bought devices with (usually) Atmel AT90S2313-10PC I.C.'s on them which were programmed with a flash that had no other purpose than to circumvent the security on a DTV access card. Now, I don't have a problem with DTV getting ripped off; I could care less. But the fact remains that these devices are illegal access devices, and as such, are illegal. Sucks, yeah, but that's why you have to be f**king careful when you buy this stuff!!!!

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[mzo23]

When you buy a hammer for something legit do you purchase in cash and make tons of attempts to hide your identity because some crazy person could smash someone else's property with it? I'm sure legitimate purchasers of the card programmers weren't thinking "Oh boy I hope DirecTV doesn't come after me for working on my new security hobby." Many of the victims don't even have a satallite(sp) dish. When you have to hide your identity just to buy something completely legit something is wrong with the world. I can't see how DirecTV would even lose $3,500 when someone does use it for illigitamite (sp) reasons. As someone else mentioned that's approximately 3 years of service. So that's assuming the customer was going to stay with them for another 3 years. Not to mention, I don't think most people who cough up the $3,500 are going to stay customers. So does this mean DirecTV doesn't plan to last another 3 years or grow at all? Aren't they posting high profits? There's no excuse for their behavior. And the real morons are the ones who let shit like this slide. Should you have purchased your VCR under an assumed name?

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[edrugtrader]

going through your website whois i got the following information

Registrant Name: Chuck Linley
Registrant Organization: Mangaburn Solid Industries
Registrant Address: 917 S. Main St
Registrant Address 2: 0
Registrant City: Dunconville
Registrant State/Province: TX
Registrant Postal Code: 75137
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone Number: +1.5559999
Registrant Email: mangaburn@ziplip.com

splityowig.com has a link to "my slashdot articles" that goes to this username... unless the above is false information, you are just as dumb as they are.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[MortisUmbra]

"But the fact remains that these devices are illegal access devices, and as such, are illegal." The ones that are flashed with a SPECIFIC list of ATMEL programming which are ONLY good for DTV hacking are illegal yes. Otherwise, no, they most certainly are not illegal, my apparently illegal use for this device is for smart-card operated door locks. Same NDS cards used by DTV work in this system. Want a cheap set of spare "keys" go on ebay and buy old H card (since they phased H out you cannot POSSIBLY tell me thats illegal) for dirt freakin cheap.

And for the record ALOT of programmers don't come pre-flashed. Just like mod-chips, all they are is EEPROMS and electronics until you tell them to be something else. Same way mod-chip sellers get away with it COULD be copied by the DTV guys, but either most people are too stupid, or most people just don't care and want to make a quick buck. Either way your "fact" is only a fact in the very stictest confines of your wording. IF they are flashed, and flashed with a script that cannot be used for anything other than DTV hacking, then they are illegal to buy or sell. But last I checked none of the parts in the recipe for these readers is restricted in any way shape or form, not as individuals, and not as an assembled whole.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[gnu-sucks]

Naw dude, they'll just obtain slashdot log files, which are publically avaliable anyway, and get your ip address, contact your isp, etc..

Unless you posted from a Kinkos..... ohh... now there's a twist

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[Q Who]

So you have someone's details. Can you prove he purchased something illegal?

You are being ridiculous.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[Zurk]

or you couldve sent a USPS money order to a P.O.Box for delivery.
i believe UPS asks for ID when you do the COD thingy but im not too sure. USPS sure as hell doesnt ask for anything.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[Mr.Sharpy]

I got one of those damn letters, AT WORK, and I only bought a ISO smart card programmer from a site that was selling them cheap. The programmers (2) that I bought worked well for my application because they didn't use surface mount components, so they were easier to screw around with. Sometimes its easier to buy something prebuilt and modify it.

The ISO smart card reader I bought is not illegal, and it should never be made illegal. If they are, I guess I will have to throw out the Toshiba laptop I have with a reader BUILT IN. And all of the other devices that read smart cards. I guess the door to my lab will be illegal too.

MY GOD, DIRECTV WANTS TO TAKE OVER MY LAB!

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[edrugtrader]

uhh... he admitted it.

can the cops prove these people purchased anything before they raid their houses? no.

they just have reasonable suspicsion.

Re:They are gonna have a hard time....

[Talking Goat]

Actually, I admitted nothing, and can't, since I've never ordered any illegal devices from anyone online. A read through my post makes that completely obvious. I do, however, know how the process works. How? I can read, and have been doing so for years in regard to this subject. As such, I can discuss the topic with some semblance of knowledgeability (unlike yourself).

As to your silly statement regarding the police, there aren't any police raids involved with these DTV lawsuits. DTV sends a letter to the supposed pirate, and files suit in the event that the person doesn't settle out of court. The only time that the police have been involved is when a raid was conducted on a large fulfillment house and its related parties. There are not police raids on end-users based on "reasonable suspicsion [sic]" or any other suspicion. It's all DTV and a letter-writing campaign.

But then, you wouldn't care about that, would you? All you care about is making reactionary, blatantly accusatory, and careless posts against persons that you don't even know. You do a quick whois and pose as some sort of bastion of wisdom and perspicacity who's going to draw the "criminal" out into the open? Here's news for you:

You are a tool sir, and nothing less.

And furthermore, be assured that any information that you retrieved during what I am sure was an exhausting 2-second brain dead fact-finding mission cannot and will not have any sort of effect on myself personally. Some of us are quite able to protect our identities online, as opposed to yourself Michael.

Re:So...

[betacrash]

I guess its time to sue Target(c)(TM) as well http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/sr=2-1/qid=10 58469368/ref=sr_2_1/602-0951896-7659812?asin=B0000 66PI0

reminds me of Final Fantasy II....

[macshune]

Cecil: We see monsters increasing every day.
Tame creatures are getting more aggressive day by day.
It must be a portent of some kind...

If you can't do the time....

[b.foster]

These were no ordinary "smartcard readers."

The sites that sold the devices advertised them as signal theft devices. That is why the sites got busted in the first place.

Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[JeThR0]

Not true im my buddy's case. He bought it off a site that focused on using them for security - and he still got a letter.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[buckinm]

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.)

Actually, cocaine is still used as a painkiller by some dentists.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[jdh-22]

Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not.

No wonder my mom's bread was so addictive!

Re:If you can't do the time....

[snowlick]

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.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[djmoore]

Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not.

Doesn't matter who you buy it from; white flour is a completely legal substance. Period.

I bet a lot of those "pirate" shops also sold screwdrivers, scopes, meters, connectors, wires....

Doesn't matter who you buy it from. If you don't use it to commit an illegal act, you ought not be culpable. Period.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[ReelOddeeo]

Please indicate which ones.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[ivan256]

Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer?

That's hardly a reasonable analogy. White flour is cheap. Programable smartcard programmers are not. I've purchased an ISO programmer from a shady canadian sateleite pirate dealer simply because they were considerably cheaper there than through other sources. If I could have gotten a programable programmer for $15 elsewhere I would have. Now I just have to hope DirecTV doesn't come after me since I'm a paying customer... You can't pirate a signal you're paying for, right?

Re:If you can't do the time....

[Dachannien]

Wow... Well, I went to the DEA's website expecting to see cocaine listed as Schedule I, but it is indeed Schedule II. I stand corrected.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[MongooseCN]

Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not.

What are you saying? Sorry I'm a little slow. Every time I make some toast I start hallucinating for a few days.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[Xciton]

Nope, that's not right.

I would buy white flour from a cocaine dealer for my choclate cake if the price was cheaper from him than buying white flour in a grocery store... The fact his white flour has some other sideffects is not my problem (that's not what I bought it for in the first place)

Most ISO programmers for reading smartcards cost several hundered dollars. The ISO readers these sits were offering are FAR FAR cheaper, but have the same capabilites and provide the same functionality.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[Pentagram]

Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not.

Seems reasonable to me! On the other hand though, I wouldn't buy cocaine from a white flour dealer.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[lommer]

It's also used as a coagulent. My neighbour is an emerg doctor and he has an absolutely hilarious story involving a misplaced cup of cocaine flakes that were intended for stopping some latino lady's uncontrollable nosebleed. Luckily the cocaine that hospitals use is something like 5% of the concentration of what you get on the street, and also the analogy still fails because hospitals don't buy their crack from street dealers.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[brakk]

The point is that it was being sold as a device to steal TV. If someone was trying to sell me a knife as a "Pig Shank" and I bought it because I needed to cut a peice of rope does that mean I can be put in jail for attempting to stab a cop?

Re:If you can't do the time....

[revery]

Consider yourself the recipient of a virtual mod point.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[EricWright]

Now I just have to hope DirecTV doesn't come after me since I'm a paying customer... You can't pirate a signal you're paying for, right?

But, according to the article, you can use the cards to get premium and pay-per-view signals for free. If you do that, it doesn't matter if you're a subscriber or not: You're stealing the signal. Stealing's wrong, hmmm-kay?
--

Re:If you can't do the time....

[kalemba]

just because you buy cigarette paper doesn't mean that you're rolling joints

Re:If you can't do the time....

[Cipster]

Actually no. Cocaine is an anesthetic and also used in research. A couple of years a go our lab bought cocaine for some muscle contraction research (we used it as a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor).

Re:If you can't do the time....

[ivan256]

But, according to the article, you can use the cards to get premium and pay-per-view signals for free.

Why do you assume I don't pay for the premium channels too? They also have me hook a phone line up to my reciever. They should be able to tell if I'm messing around with the card if they want to. They have full control of the firmware and everything. (This is hypothetical anyway... I have one of the newer cards that you supposedly can't hack.)

Threatening your customers with legal action when you can easily find out that they aren't doing anything wrong isn't a good business strategy. They have two choices: they can (try to) extort $3500 from me now and loose my business and the business of people I would have referred to them (I've talked *lots* of people into signing up already), or they can collect regular payments from me indefinatly which won't take long to add up to more than $3500...

Re:If you can't do the time....

[EricWright]

Hey, I'm not defending the bloodsucking bastards... I'm just pointing out that paying for DirecTV service would not necessarily shield you from their attacks. Even if you pay for every premium service they offer, they could still claim you're stealing PPV content. At that point, you could give them $3500, or give a lawyer a lot more to defend you in the lawsuit.

If you win, you could possibly countersue to recoup losses, but that costs more $$$ and there is no guarantee you will win the countersuit.

Damn, I hate this fucking system.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[Waab]

Cocaine has valid medical uses. In fact, any physician who pays the proper license fees can get their hands on it.

Crack, on the other hand, has no known medical use, much like LSD and marijuana.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[ShavenYak]

Crack, on the other hand, has no known medical use, much like LSD and marijuana.

Marijuana is a relatively effective analgesic, although we all know that promoters of medicinal marijuana really just wanna get high. That said, alcohol and tobacco are both legal for recreational use, and marijuana isn't so much worse that it should be treated like crack.

Incidentally, I believe at one time, LSD was thought to have a promising future in treatment of some mental illnesses.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[caluml]

no known medical use, much like LSD and marijuana.

Just search for it.
I guess alcohol and nicotine fall into the "no known medical use" catagory though.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[DarkSkiesAhead]

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.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[frer]

BBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTT Incorrect my friend, cocaine has several medicinal derivatives.....

Re:If you can't do the time....

[macshune]

Just like p2p has other uses besides violating other people's intellectual property? Pretty soon my computer will have some silly restricted OS that only allows "trusted" code on it. It'll probably be called palladium or rifts or some other book-based role-playing name..oh wait...shit.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[AntiOrganic]

Would an intelligent cocaine dealer sell cocaine at white flour prices? If so, please tell me where I can find him!

Re:If you can't do the time....

[composer777]

then don't live in a modern reincarnation of Nazi Germany. :)

Re:If you can't do the time....

[HermanAB]

Heh? There is a lot of good uses for cocaine - imagine going to the dentist for a root canal without getting a shot of cocaine. A problem with the drug business is that just like the RIAA, the big companies want to control the whole chain of production and they don't tollerate upstarts...

Re:If you can't do the time....

[HiThere]

Cocaine actually has many uses. It used to be used frequently by dentists before more effective drugs (like novocaine and [possibly] nitrous oxide) came around.

Cocaine has historically be primarilly used to numb pain. Other uses are basically modern phenomena. Now if you has said crack...I know of no other uses for that, but then it's always been illegal, and therefore too expensive for any but the most remunerative purposes.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[HiThere]

Also there was a drug mixture containing, I believe, both LSD and Thalidomide, that was reputed to be effective against even the pain of terminal cancer. Without making the recipient totally unconscious. (Though one might suspect that their thought processes might have been a bit strange.)

Naturally all right thinking people rejected this as a legitimate use.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[arodland]

Of course, the fact that we live in a world where they can claim that people are stealing something that they BROADCAST over a whole hemisphere is an entirely different issue.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[HiThere]

All of those drugs have valid uses. Legitimate? That depends on the laws, doesn't it?

In order:
1) LSD: Can be used to help one adapt to grief, such as one's coming painful death from cancer.
2) Marijuana: Sedative. Mood elevator. Appetite enhancer. Can be use to tranquilize the desire for sex (was used that way in some midieval monestaries).
3) Alcohol: And excellent solvent for many other drugs.
4) Tobacco: Was used by native americans for sedation during surgery. (Basically, you take a cigar, and shove it up the patients rectum. But be very careful. The effective dose is very close to the lethal dose.)

Almost all drugs have one or several legitimate uses. Many of them, however, have been superceeded by others which are either more effective, or have fewer side effects.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[LostCluster]

Yes, but on the other hand buying something from this vendor gives a big clue on how it will be used. All one needs to do to get rid of these charges is to bring some shread of proof for their legit use of a smartcard system, and DirecTV gets laughed out of court. Unfortunately, DirecTV is going to turn out to be right much more often than it is wrong.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[SagSaw]

Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not.

Possibly, if some favorable combination of the following occurs:

The cocaine dealer is selling flour for less than supermarkets. (Not likely IMHO)

The cocaine dealer's convienient location and no-questions-asked policy makes his higher price worth paying. (More likely, since the sites that sell readers for DirecTV cracking use probably accept on-line orders 24x7).

The buyer is not aware of any other retailers who sell flour. (Very possible, if the buyer runs accross a site selling the DirecTV marked version before finding a more legitimate site)

Re:If you can't do the time....

[LostCluster]

If you buy white flour from somebody claiming it is cocaine, you haven't committed a crime. However, somebody who wanted to try to accuse you of being a regular buyer of cocaine can use the fact that you tried to buy cocaine, and anything you might have done or said in the process of buying that flour that you were convinced was cocaine.

Besides, shooting down this lawsuit is a rather simple thing. Just show the judge your smartcard-based door entry system or whatever legal thing you did use the programmer for, and summit sworn testimony under penality of perjury that you've never hacked DirecTV. Simple enough things to do if you're innocent. If you're not, you shouldn't be winning this lawsuit anyway!

Re:If you can't do the time....

[quantum bit]

because there's only one real use for cocaine: getting high.

Back when I was having sinus problems my specialist would sometimes use this killer decongestant that was in bottles hand-labeled "6% solution substitute". One day I asked what it was a substitute for and he said that they used to use Cocaine solution because it's a very effective decongestant and antisthetic... Of course the "war on drugs" made it much harder to get certain substances, even for medicinal purposes, so it was easier and cheaper to just come up with something else that had a similar effect.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[Dun Malg]

All one needs to do to get rid of these charges is to bring some shread of proof for their legit use of a smartcard system

Actually, you don't have to prove anything. DirecTV has to meet the burden of proof. If they come to court and say "most people use these to hack our system", one need only counter with "I'm not one of those people". A statistical probability isn't evidence of anything.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[SillySlashdotName]

Cocaine has valid medical uses.

We used it in the ER. TAC (a mixture of Tetracaine, Adrenaline, and Cocaine) is applied topically. We used it for suturing children.

Put it on a cotton ball, tape to the cut, then wait until the skin blanched - the wound is now numb and ready for cleaning/suturing. I had one child go to sleep while we were sewing him up. TAC is MUCH less traumatic than injected local anaesthetic!!

... much like LSD and marijuana. (my emphasis)

OK, you lost me there. Marijuana (THC) has medical uses - mainly used for controlling nausea in chemo/cancer patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in specific types of glaucoma. The fact that those usages are not LEGAL (in most places) does not negate the medical utility of the drug.

Re:If you can't do the time....

[Waab]

Okay, enough people have commented on this that I guess I should clarify. The federal government of the United States of America officially recognizes that cocaine has valid medical uses. Whether or not LSD and marijuana have valid medical uses is a topic of much debate. I was simply stating the official policy of the United States government.

Personally, I don't see marijuana as any more harmful than tobacco and/or alcohol. Marijuana obviously has some medicinal uses. LSD has also shown some promise in Dr. Leary's studies, but those results probably need a little more support before LSD gains the kind of popular acceptance (or at least tolerance) marijuana seems to be receiving.

Re:BARRATRY! ddi you read the article?

[pigscanfly.ca]

It says that a number of the people who were sued , decided to form a class action lawsuit and the judge found in favour of direct TV . Of course it is being appealed but we will see.

Yep.

[Geekenstein]

Old news, this. As for suing anybody who bought a smart card reader, that's bull. They are going after the customers of sites that pretty much state that use as the purpose of the product. The only possible defense is that the chips aren't programmed (usually) out of the store to write DTV's cards, but thats been even harder to use since the hardware itself is being put together to send the right kind of signals to break into their cards.

That being said, they usually just demand money and the return of the equipment purchased. Of course the people they sue usually don't have the resources to fight the claims, so who knows if this will actually be tested in court?

Re:Yep.

[Geekenstein]

As I said. Maybe you'd care to read it again?

As for suing anybody who bought a smart card reader, that's bull. They are going after the customers of sites that pretty much state that use as the purpose of the product.

Re:Yep.

[MImeKillEr]

There is no difference between a reasonably flexible smart card reader and a smart card programmer.

Sure there is. One merely reads, while the other allows you to program the card.

Using your logic, one could say that there's no difference between a CD-R drive and a CD-RW drive.

Re:Yep.

[MImeKillEr]

As for suing anybody who bought a smart card reader, that's bull.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

They're not going after people who bought readers.

So, someone buys from a site that caters to pirates but Joe Q. Public can buy there as well and has a legitimate use for it. So you're saying its ok to extort $3500 from people who use it for a legitimate use, without direct proof that they're using the devices illegally?

In other news...

[stmfreak]

...Kwikset is suing everyone who bought paperclips and thin blade flathead screwdrivers in the last fifty years.

Realizing that their locks can be circumvented with a modicum of patience and the above mentioned tools, Kiwkset raided sales records at local home and office supply chains to locate citizens who had purchased paperclips and screwdrivers. Citing that no one who purchased the two items in the same month could possibly be up to any good, Kwikset sent out cease and desist letters to approximately 40,000 citizens demanding that they turn over the screwdrivers and paperclips to local authorities.

Ecnomics 101

[deadlinegrunt]

1. Create customer base
2. Sue them all
3. Profit!!!

Legal extortion.

[wayward_son]

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.

Re:Legal extortion.

[genka]

Can anyone explain, why lawyer is required? Why person can't simply go to court and state his/her case before a judge?

Re:Legal extortion.

[bconway]

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

Re:Legal extortion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone explain, why lawyer is required? Why person can't simply go to court and state his/her case before a judge?

Can anyone explain why programmer is required? Why person can't simply go to computer and state what he/she wants application to do.

Re:Legal extortion.

[jvbunte]

Paying more than $3500.00 in legal fees is not entirely true. The letters sent out by DTV are letters threatening a lawsuit, not a lawsuit in and of themselves. Hiring an attorney to respond to the letter can convince them that suing you is not a good idea. There are numerous defenses one could argue, and each case has its own circumstances that can sway DTV's lawyers on whether or not its profitable for them to sue you. You can get an attorney to send a response for considerably less than $3500.00 and DTV might not even sue you based on this alone.

Re:Legal extortion.

[Blitzshlag]

IANAL but I think that if you get sued and win, you can countersue for 'wrongful prossecution' in the amount of your legal fees.

Re:Legal extortion.

[mekkab]

"A witty quote proves nothing" ;)

Re:Legal extortion.

[tomhudson]

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

... as opposed to paying some other fool good money to say the same thing he/she could say to the judge him/herself?

Don't forget - 50% of all lawyers graduate in the bottom half of their class.

In any trial where you represent yourself, the judge is obligated to make sure that your rights aren't trampled. It creates a double-bind situation, psychologically. The judge, on the one hand, is requred to be impartial. On the other hand, he also has to be watching out to make sure that the opposing lawyer isn't taking unfair advantage of the situation. This means frequent breaks while the judge explains what various things mean, proper procedure, form for questions, etc. Ten people representing themselves in court would be disasterous to a judge's schedule. A thousand people doing the same will clog the system so badly ...

Re:Legal extortion.

[RevMike]

All registered mail proves is that [someone claiming to be] you got AN ENVELOPE. What was in that envelope is up for debate.

After a lawyer sends the letter, he also makes a document called an "Affirmation of Service". If a non-lawyer, such as a paralegal, legal secretary, etc. sends the letter, they fill out an "Affadavit of Service". These are sworn documents.

If a judge or other member of the legal profession has the slightest inkling that the affirmation or affidavit was falsified, the responsible attorney is brought up on disciplinary charges (with the real potential for disbarment) so quickly your head would spin.

Even if the attorney was not disbarred, he would face a damaging cloud of suspicion for the rest of his career. No intelligent attorney would risk his livelihood for such a simple thing.

While many people criticize lawyers for many things, the profession tends to be squeaky clean when it comes to these types of issues. The accusation of dishonesty is taken incredibly seriously.

For better or for worse, the legal system in the US of A is an adversarial system. There is nothing that stops anyone from sending out letters threatening a civil lawsuit. And once a suit is filed, it is likely that the fact that the defendant purchased the device from someone marketing it as a tool to steal service would be enough to deny a counter claim of baratry or request for other sanction on the plaintiff.

Re:Legal extortion.

[mjh]

That's not really a fair comparison. We can't presume intelligence in a computer, where as a judge is a member of a sentient species, AND by virtue of his/her position, presumed to be among the ones who would exercise better judgement.

So judges are expected to understand plain english. Computers are not.

On the other hand, dealing with expensive service providers in another field has been mostly dealt with. The excessively expensive healthcare industry deals with payment through insurance. Why don't we have legal insurance? (Rhetorical question: I do have it).

Re:Legal extortion.

[Eccles]

Hiring an attorney to respond to the letter can convince them that suing you is not a good idea.

Right. If you did nothing wrong -- you didn't use your smartcard for getting DirecTV services illegally -- it's a pretty good payoff to pay a lawyer to try and get them to back down. It'll probably cost in the $250-$500 range to get a lawyer to do so, and could save you $3500, so there's a pretty good upside.

Re:Legal extortion.

[Jad LaFields]

Well, what the person in both cases would have to do is learn the process the 'export' would use.

The person being sued could go to his/her local library and spend numerous hours learning the applicable laws and cases and then present the case to the judge. The computer user could go to the library and study up on the programming needed to write the application.

Both would take time, but would cost less money. Hiring a laywer or a programmer would take less time but would cost more money.

If I in this situation, I quite possibly might decide to represent myself... I'd take some time looking over the laws, and if they didn't seem to complicated, I'd get some final pointers from a lawyer relative (just thinking about it, I actually have quite a few lawyer aunts/uncles...) and would go for it.

Of course, I don't have DirectTV or a smartcard thingymabob, so I'm in the clear =)

Re:Legal extortion.

[jwilloug]

Don't forget - 50% of all lawyers graduate in the bottom half of their class.

Ok, I'm being excessively nitpicky, but graduating law school does not make you a lawyer. There's a whole bar exam in place specifically to make your statistic untrue...

Re:Legal extortion.

[ShavenYak]

Ten people representing themselves in court would be disasterous to a judge's schedule. A thousand people doing the same will clog the system so badly ...

And ten thousand people, that would be a movement. And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-DTV-extortion movement....

Oh, never mind. Average /. reader is far too young to get that.

Re:Legal extortion.

[Valar]

We can't presume intelligence in a computer, where as a judge is a member of a sentient species, AND by virtue of his/her position, presumed to be among the ones who would exercise better judgement.


You're new here, aren't you?

Re:Legal extortion.

[mjh]

No, but that's funny!

Re:Legal extortion.

[VistaBoy]

And all 'ya gotta do to join is sing a bar of Alice's Restaurant the next time it comes along on the guitar!

You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant (excepting Alice)

Walk right in it's around the back, just a half a mile from the railroad track.

Re:Legal extortion.

[guacamolefoo]

In any trial where you represent yourself, the judge is obligated to make sure that your rights aren't trampled. It creates a double-bind situation, psychologically. The judge, on the one hand, is requred to be impartial. On the other hand, he also has to be watching out to make sure that the opposing lawyer isn't taking unfair advantage of the situation.

You haven't been in court much, have you?

This means frequent breaks while the judge explains what various things mean, proper procedure, form for questions, etc. Ten people representing themselves in court would be disasterous to a judge's schedule. A thousand people doing the same will clog the system so badly ...

The judge will go out of his way not to help someone who doesn't know shit just as much as he will go out of his way not to help a smart lawyer. There are exceptions, but I clerked for a judge (whom I greatly respect), and as much as he wanted to sometimes, he would not do anything for them beyond judge what was properly before him. To do otherwise violates every principle that matters to judges.

In short, if you go into court with the idea that a judge will explain things to you at all or help you in any way if you are pro se, you are going to walk out without being concerned about constipation ever again.

GF.

Re:Legal extortion.

[rthille]

That's right officer, I burried that smart card reader at the bottom of that pile of garbage...

Re:Legal extortion.

[ShavenYak]

Apparently I was mistaken. What a pleasant surprise.

Hmm, I wonder if DirecTV has any 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what it is and how it is to be used as evidence against us?

Re:Legal extortion.

[kmac06]

"Don't forget - 50% of all lawyers graduate in the bottom half of their class."

Actually I doubt that's true. I imagine the bottom 50% of the class has a significantly lower chance of passing the Bar. 50% of all lawyers score in the lower 50% of the Bar exam is pretty much all you could say on that, but I don't give much credibility to that as long as they pass...which isn't to say anyone who passes the bar is a good lawyer, I'm just saying it's not a good assessment to use.

Re:Legal extortion.

[urulokion]

If you are going to use a witty quote, get it right. It goes:

"A _lawyer_ who represents himself has a fool for a client"

Re:Legal extortion.

[tomhudson]

It makes you a lawyer, just not a practicing one. Mind you, last year one guy got exposed after almost 2 years of practicing law (pleading cases before judges, taking money from clients, etc) and constantly being criticized, when someone checked, and it turned out he not only wasn't a member of the bar, he hadn't even studied law.

The fact that it took 2 years to expose him shows what a bunch of slackers the average cohort of lawyers is.

Why'd he do it - 'cause, as he said, it was an easy way to make money without really working.

Re:Legal extortion.

[tomhudson]

Judges are required to explain points of law to people who are acting as their own attorneys.

This doesn't mean that you won't gat some prick who doesn't want, or is too lazy, to apply the rules .

It's not a queston of "not knowing shit". As long as you know how to properly phrase quesions (what heresay is and isn't, for example), how to make your point when objecting, how not to argue when the judge has made a ruling on a point that didn't go the way you wanted, you'll do okay.

This doesn't mean that the judge is going to do your legwork for you - you still have to research your precedents (helps to have a photocopy of anything you're quoting), and you have to realize that all the "just answer the question yes or no" bullshit you see on the tube is just that.

You can get a decent education just by spending a few weeks sitting in on a murder trial or two, and it's free.

Present your case (in this case, that DirecTV has no evidence that you pirated signals, that posession of programmers is legal, that they have legal uses, and then go on to explain why it's not reasonable for you to be held liable for something that they "think" you might have done), and you'll be okay. What's so hard about that?

Re:Legal extortion.

[tomhudson]

... of course, you can always get some lawyer to argue just the opposite (lies, damn lies, and lawyers^H^H^H^H^Hstatistics) :-)

Okay, time to lighten up

Lawyer Jones died, and the mayor was passing the hat to take up a collection to bury him.
They went to see Old Scrooge, and asked him to contribute $5.00.
What for, asked Scrooge?
To bury lawyer Jones, replied the mayor.
Here's $20.00. Go bury 3 omore!

Re:Legal extortion.

[guacamolefoo]

You can get a decent education just by spending a few weeks sitting in on a murder trial or two, and it's free.

I'm going to circulate your post at my local bar association board meeting tomorrow. I'm sure that they will agree with me on how rational and thoughtful it is.

Best of luck.

GF.

Re:Legal extortion.

[switcha]

it turned out he not only wasn't a member of the bar, he hadn't even studied law.

Yes, I'm sure this is par for the course in the legal profession.

The fact that it took 2 years to expose him shows what a bunch of slackers the average cohort of lawyers is.

Maybe the fact that you even heard about it shows that it's an extraordinary example.

Re:Legal extortion.

[Xerithane]

Judges are required to explain points of law to people who are acting as their own attorneys.

You obviously have no clue about civil law. This is wrong. If you go to a civil suit, and attempt to by-pass it by being an ignorant fool you will lose. Only in a criminal hearing do you need to understand the charges and the gravity of those charges. Typically, a judge will not explain those either.

You can get a decent education just by spending a few weeks sitting in on a murder trial or two, and it's free.

You do understand the difference between civil and criminal law, right? If I go watch a mechanic fix my engine, does that mean I can do body work? No. Just like if you watch criminal law cases, you don't learn shit about civil law.

Present your case (in this case, that DirecTV has no evidence that you pirated signals, that posession of programmers is legal, that they have legal uses, and then go on to explain why it's not reasonable for you to be held liable for something that they "think" you might have done), and you'll be okay. What's so hard about that?

Yes, go up against lawyers who are trained, versed, and rehearsed to make you look like a pirate with your argument that there lies no proof, outside of circumstance, that you pirated anything. Yet you still have no valid use for a SmartCard programming device. Also, could you explain why you purchased the SmartCard device in question from a well-known and investigated supplier of illegal wares advertised for the sole-purpose of piracy? Could you address the reasoning why you were using a SmartCard system, instead of a more widely used and cheaper system for your supposed authentication? Such as the iButton?

Yeah, you'll do great in court, bud. Just hope and pray that you never get sued.

Re:Legal extortion.

[tomhudson]

***Maybe the fact that you even heard about it shows that it's an extraordinary example.***

It really begs the question of how many others out there aren't "all there". We had one lawyer up here kept sleeping through his clients' trials. Judges just wouldn't cite him for contempt (but if you or I started snoring in a court, we'd be in deep shit).

Remember, originally lawyers didn't require any formal education. And look at how many decisions are reversed on appeal. Law is not deterministic, like computers.

Re:Legal extortion.

[tomhudson]

I know the diff between civil and criminal, and the difference in the burden of proof required to win in either. Been there, done that.

The reason I suggested murder trials is because, having had to sit through a couple of them, I found them interesting and quite educational vis. procedures, etc. Let's face it, there's more scrutiny, more tactics displayed at high-stakes trials than a case of, say, shoplifting or vagrancy.

Remember, it's a queston of proof, not suppositions, even in civil cases. With no proof, and a defendant who says "I'm not guilty", the judge is required to acquit, since there is no case (not even circumstantial - the devices are legal, so possession is ok).

FYI, I do ok in court. Buy the latest editions of the civil and criminal codes in my jurisdiction every few years, read the when I'm out of other reading materials, etc. It's interesting.

Re:Legal extortion.

[Ozric]

You can represent youself .... and when the case is thrown out of court for the BS that it is. You can assess your fee at 500 dollars an hour then counter sue for lost wages etc. There is nothing mistical about the law.... And if you lose you can plead ineffective cousel on appeal. You can keep them tied up in court for years yourself with very little effort.

Re:Legal extortion.

[BigDish]

We can't presume intelligence in a government official, where as a computer is not bribed by money...excuse me...campaign donations.

Re:Legal extortion.

[sgtrock]

There I was on the Group W bench. Surrounded by father rapers and mother stabbers and they asked me, "What are you in for?"

and I said, "Litterin'."

And they all moved away. So I said "And disturbin' the peace" and they all moved back.

We were all havin' a fahn time on the Group W bench, playin' with the pencils....

Hrmmm.....

[Mhrmnhrm]

It's really too bad I didn't buy one of these things. I'd love to get the EFF and ACLU to take my case, given that I don't even own a satellite dish of any sort. Can we say $10B USD countersuit for extortion? Seems from the article that several judges have been seeing through this shenanigan, and might actuallly be willing to sock it to DirecTV.

Re:Hrmmm.....

[pastpolls]

You might be onto something here. I wonder if the ACLU would take a more pro-active stance against abuses of the DMCA if slashdoters en masse were asking them to. I usually do not like the ACLU, but they sure would get my money if they would become a lot more pro-active about these issues, and not the fact the little Johney got kick out of school for having blue hair.

Hum

[f97tosc]

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.

Many will probably settle out of court.

Of the remainder, they may not win the suit if somebody has not used the equipment and can prove this. I guess in this case it is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but rather which side has the more compelling evidence. I can be argued that most people taht buy decoders use them, thus if you haven't you need some sort of evidence to back up your claim.

After a while there might emerge a pattern which makes it clear that most people that actually go to court win (or lose).

Tor

Re:Hum

[grennis]

Of the remainder, they may not win the suit if somebody has not used the equipment and can prove this

Ok, so how do you prove that you didn't use something?

blackmail

[slackwaresupport]

occording to the law. that is blackmail, saying if you dont pay us we will sue you.

next up:

[Machine9]

RIAA sues everyone who has ever bought an MP3 player, or has run software that plays MP3s...

...oh wait, isn't that everybody who owns a computer nowadays?

I'm sorry, but the whole lawsuit business is getting rather...silly

I for one blame the american judicial system, and the stupid people that seek to emulate it.

Once again...

[DJ Rubbie]

The bully has it their way.

Imagine, an innocent person buying a product that could be used to reprogram other equipment, such as an electronic control for art exhibits, or access control at the keyboard, is now threatened to pay thousands of dollars in damages because a corporation decided that piece of equipment can be used to violate their protection schemes (and the DMCA). The hapless individual, fearing more lawsuits in federal courts (thus costing even more than the original sum of money), decides to pay up to this bully to avoid more troubles...

Oh wait, that just happened. This is the kind of events we really should support the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) for. If you happen to know anyone who are harmed by this, let them know about the EFF.

Re:Once again...

[wolf-]

With all the claims in this thread to support the EFF...what exactly has the EFF done for us all lately?

What was their last ground breaking, rights protecting success?

Be better off hoarding our money to pay our OWN laywers, who have a truly vested interested in protecting ME.

Re:Once again...

[tybalt44]

EFF are working all the time. Some recent important successes? There's this one, this one (crucial to prisoners), or maybe this case, which you mgiht have heard of.

It's a tough fight. They're doing well.

doesn't seem to mater in civil court

[ProfBooty]

Unfortunatly that only seems to apply in criminal court.

Look at the OJ simpson case. OJ was pronounced not guilty in the criminal case, yet lost the civil case and most of his fortune.

Re:doesn't seem to mater in civil court

[thomas.galvin]

IANAL, but:

In every court except tax court (gee, shocking), the burden of proof is on the accusing party. The level of evidence, though, is much higher in criminal court than in civil court; one must be shown guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal court, while a mere "perponderance of the evidence" is sufficient in civil court.

Therefore, there are many cases, where there is not enough evidence for a criminal conviction, but is enough for a civil judgment.

Re:doesn't seem to mater in civil court

[TheGreek]

Actually, you still have the presumption of innocence in civil court, too. It's just that the standard of "guilt" in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence" by 9 out of 12 jurors instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" by 12 out of 12 jurors in criminal cases.

That's why the families went after him in Civil court. They figured they could win there.

Re:doesn't seem to mater in civil court

[hackstraw]

Look at the OJ simpson case. OJ was pronounced not guilty in the criminal case, yet lost the civil case and most of his fortune.

But he still plays golf, and is not in prison. A simplistic difference between civil and criminal court:

In criminal court you are found guilty or "not guilty" (which does not mean innocent). OJ was found "not guilty".

In civil court you are found liable or "not liable", and if you are found to be liable, then its up to the jury to determine "how liable". OJ was found liable to some XX million dollars, it could have been 50 cents.

In both cases the burdon of proof is on the prosecution or plaintiff to prove the guilt or liability.

DirectTV's lawyers have an assload of work if they really feel like gathering all the evidence they need for each of thier defendants. However, if the ppl are like the guy in the article that just wrote them a check, I guess its worth it.

Haha

[Tuffnut]

It's just a scare tactic. Who's willing to bet that no one is going to pay the $3500? I am!

Is it illegal to possess it? If not, then how are they going to prove it was being used by the owner?

Re:Haha

[shamino0]

Who's willing to bet that no one is going to pay the $3500?

Too late. The Register article already cited one person who paid up.

Is it illegal to possess it?

The DMCA states that posession of any device whose primary purpose is piracy is illegal. The real question here is if DirecTV can prove that the smart card programmers purchased are piracy devices and not just general-purpose programmers that are sometimes used for piracy.

Given that the devices in question were advertised and sold as piracy devices, the result is not that clear. The device is general-purpose, but its stated purpose is piracy. If the court concludes that it's a piracy device, then posession is illegal. If not, then DirecTV will have to prove that it was actually used for piracy, which is much more difficult.

This strikes a very similar parallel to DVD decryption software. It is general-purpose software (used for making player software as well as piracy). The MPAA's claim is that its primary purpose is piracy.

Whoever has the biggest stick wins

[serutan]

Another illustration that the court system and the justice system are not always synonymous. In situations like this, whoever can afford more litigation costs wins. The only people who are going to challenge this sort of legal bullying are a few fanatics who will fight on principle, and the few who use smartcard programmers for some legitimate business purpose and can justify the expense. The rest will fold up and hand them over.

SCO?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Looks like they borrowed, and are playing Daryl's "If you run Linux, we're going to sue you" card. What can citizens do to stop these insane litigation fiaSCOs from happening?

Re:SCO?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Yeah yeah...bad taste to reply to your own post and whatnot...but just for the record, I wasn't trying to flamebait here, I was trying to be funny. I apologize for those of you who read slashdot who are humor-impaired.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Shit! Do those work to program DiretTV cards?

Stealing

[latroM]

"to enable stealing their programming." But you can't steal anything that isn't a physical object. The author of this article uses misleading words. If I "steal" some of their broadcast how much they lose? A good question indeed.

I want to care, but the victims don't!

[Anthony Boyd]

When he called the company to clear things up, he found they weren't interested in his explanations: they wanted $3,500 and the smart card programmer, or they would literally make a federal case out of it and sue him under anti-piracy laws. "I didn't know what to do, I was completely flabbergasted. So I sent the money in," says Sosa.

You know, people like Sosa make this really difficult. DirecTV is doing something unethical, I believe. People are getting wrongfully accused in my opinion. But Sosa just rolled over and paid out $3500. These people are a problem because they help a bad system to stay bad. It makes it terribly difficult for me to have sympathy for someone who has such a lack of conviction, such a failed sense of justice. They don't care. Should we?

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[rhadamanthus]

A previous poster pointed out that his uncle, who got the letter too, merely phoned his lawyer and the case was dropped. So no, I don't give two shits about people like Sosa. If you are too dumb to learn the system (including your rights) or are too lazy/scared to fight it, that's your problem.

--rhad

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[No Such Agency]

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?

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[Fuzzums]

that is the american way.
accuse someone of whatever and settle to get money.
nobody is willing to go to court because of all the trouble it gives.

it IS rather twisted.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[dki]

I think this statement is somewhat unfair. I know from experience that one can have a good income and still not be able to afford a lawsuit, especially with a company that is setting out to make an example of you. I can't even afford to put siding on my house - if confronted with a lawsuit like this I would likely pay up, even though it is against my own beliefs. Otherwise I would find myself in a situation where I might need to sell my house, car, declare bankruptcy, etc...and I am not even supporting children at this point.

And let's not forget that he did decide to join the class-action suit, and may still ultimately lose much more than that initial $3500. That's pretty brave for someone who, as stated in the article, has a family to think about.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[cK-Gunslinger]

I have a sudden urge to send Mr. Sosa a letter stating that his computer is broadcasting an IP address and that his IP address has trespassed upon my router. He should send me $3500 or I will consider seeking legal actions.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[quantaman]

You know, people like Sosa make this really difficult. DirecTV is doing something unethical, I believe. People are getting wrongfully accused in my opinion. But Sosa just rolled over and paid out $3500. These people are a problem because they help a bad system to stay bad. It makes it terribly difficult for me to have sympathy for someone who has such a lack of conviction, such a failed sense of justice. They don't care. Should we?

I don't know, it would be nice if they did fight and I hope a few of them do, and win, but I don't feel they've done something wrong if they just give in. It's a huge committment and risk to fight a corporation, and who says he's even very aware or concerned about the issues we're concerned about and why should he fight and risk his livelyhood for our cause. Our support of someone shouldn't be withheld if they don't choose to become a martyr, of course we should give them extra support if they do but if they don't we should support them anyways if we feel that what they did was right and the what the company did was wrong.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[Thavius]

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).

This statement is a bit frightening. I just goes to show how the "innocent until proven guilty" thing has been silently pushed out of the courts. DirecTV is accusing people of committing crimes with little more than a packing slip. That's hardly the sole evidence they need to prove that someone's stealing signal. The burden of proof is on them. If I got one of these letters, I'd do the same as you, telling them, "Come get some!" They would have to prove that I was doing something wrong, and they must do that before I get to defend myself. The pirates should worry, the rest should call their bluff.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[adsl]

directv have been very clever. Talk to ANY Lawyer and they will likely tell you "pay the money and get a letter from them closing the matter w/o admiting to any crime and the matter goes away". Why would ALL Lawyers advise clients like this? Because it's cheaper than fighting a large organization which has scores of corporate Lawyers. This is what is wrong with our "Legal System". You are NOT innocent until proven guilty!! You are guilty unless you can AFFORD a whole bucket of money to fight back. This is why the RIAA and directv are clever. They KNOW THIS and they USE the System for their own ends and do NOT CARE trampling innocent people in with guilty people.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[arcain]

According to the article Sosa later volunteered to be part of a 7 person class action lawsuit. They lost and are now responsible for DirectTV's $100,000 legal bill. They are appealing.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[Kamel Jockey]

I just goes to show how the "innocent until proven guilty" thing has been silently pushed out of the courts. DirecTV is accusing people of committing crimes with little more than a packing slip. That's hardly the sole evidence they need to prove that someone's stealing signal. The burden of proof is on them.

Actually, there is no "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to civil lawsuits in the USA. The US Constitution only guarantees the "innocent until proven guilty" right in criminal cases. The reasoning was that it was only in a criminal case that the defendant could be put to death, so the state would have to go out of its way to prove guilt.

A civil suit is completely the opposite. If you are the defendant in such a suit, you must prove that the plaintiff is wrong, often at your own expense, which is why its just much easier to settle. Defendants in such lawsuits also do not get the benefit of Fifth Amendment protections against testifying against oneself. The O.J. Simpson civil trial is the best example of this. The only reason he lost that case was because he would have to prove that he did not kill his wife and her friend. Contrast this to his criminal murder case, in which the State had to prove that he indeed committed the murders without being able to compel him to testify.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[borgasm]

Thats a tough call....

Courts are not a simple little thing that you can manipulate just because you are right.

Most if not all trial lawyers are spineless assholes that know how to make the system work for them, or coerce you into admitting something in a way that shows you are guilty...

If you go in front of a judge, you better be absolutely prepared...

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[calethix]

You're absolutely right. I don't feel sorry for people that get mugged or raped either. If they have so little conviction that they won't put up a fight then they deserve it.

What's that? You don't agree with that part?

It hardly seems fair to place blame on a victim for taking the route that harms them the least.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[Valar]

The thing is, this is a civil proceeding (something many people on /. appear to have missed). As such, there isn't a guilty or innocent technically, and there are different rules for burden of proof. That's why there is such a thing as a default ruling in cases like these (i.e. guilty until you show up and prove yourself innocent).

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[ShavenYak]

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.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

And? His children are not going to starve because he has to cut back his hours temporarily to fight against a frivolous lawsuit. He IS a doctor, after all.

Dr. Sosa is symptomatic of the mindset that Money is more important than anything -- even Justice. Assuming he actually wasn't doing what DirecTV was accusing him of, his willingness to hand over his lunch money to the schoolyard bully sickens me.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[wolf-]

A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[fermion]

Why do you think they set the lawsuit at $3,500. It is significant enough number to pay for the harassment process but still small enough so that most people will pay it regardless of actual guilt. Ethics has little to do with it. Unless you are actually making money with the device, there is little incentive for the individual to fight it.

If you are looking for collaborators, turn to the DirectTV customers. they are the one creating the market for the litigation. Look to the U.S. congress. They are the ones who have traded their soul for corporate donations.

It is nice when someone external to the fight chips in to help. Often, such people are the only ones who can truly help. However, if they choose not it is harsh to blame them for the problem

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[Elbow Macaroni]

With the same kind of thinking they are using, maybe I would have sent them a bill for $5,000 for all the pain and suffering their slanderous accusations are causing me. Sosa it's not too late....send them a bill.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[Elbow Macaroni]

Yeah I mean they send a letter demanding payment for something you don't owe them for? What are they going to do if you write them back and tell them to make you pay them? They would lose more money in court trying to prove all these people stole from them and what proof do they have?

It seems to me it is just a move to see what they can get from people. You have to just say NO.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[No Such Agency]

Um, he may be financially well-off, but DirecTV would crush him. "Once a man is a father he is never truly free" - Frank Miller, Batman: Year One. One of the neccessities of barratry is making a harsh example of anybody who resists. We are talking about extortion after all, and if you don't KNOW Tony Soprano is willing to break your kneecaps and burn down your store, why on earth would you pay? DirecTV taking you or I or especially smart, affluent Dr. Sosa to the poorhouse would send a lot of the other "defendants" scrambling to pull together that $3500.

The ugly truth. Makes you wish for a silenced Sig Sauer, a roll of duct tape and the keys to the DirecTV board's houses.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[pen]

What's this? People with more money have more influence? Welcome to society and civilization!

Your options are to fight injustice however you or to give in and pay the price. There is also a third option of getting away from civilization, but the continuously decreasing availability of land that isn't very populated is making this choice more difficult.

All of these options require your time and energy; If you don't have any principles, sometimes it is easier to give in, pay the price, and move on. However, as someone else pointed out, every time someone gives in, it creates more incentive for those with more power to pressure others.

Re:I want to care, but the victims don't!

[gillbates]

Sosa doesn't have to care - sooner or later, this is going to be a problem for the John Gotti of satellite piracy, and some DirecTV execs are going to end up getting whacked. From what I've read, organized crime (the Mafia) is much more involved with pirating tv signals than movies or CD's. DirecTV isn't taking on just a bunch of casual downloaders; they've included the mob in their hit list, and I imagine the mob will return the favor.

Business strategy

[truthsearch]

Yeah, this is a great way to keep your customers happy. If I signed up for a service and then got sued for no good reason I'd drop that service in a heartbeat. That's especially true for something like satellite TV, where most customers probably have the choice to switch back to regular cable.

Re:Business strategy

[bofkentucky]

cable only reaches like 60% of the US, and for me it is the only way to get UPN, Fox, and CBS of the over the air networks

/geek mode on

[numbski]

Final Fantasy IV

That translation we got was a pathetic joke. :P

The playstation version was a little better, but not much. Better to download the hacked translation of Final Fantasy IV Hard Type off the net. THAT'S the real game. ;P

Re:/geek mode on

[macshune]

It wasn't a pathetic joke if you were 12 when it came out:)

they're coming to take me away!

[AwesomeJT]

Oh, I can see the paddy wagon now!
They're coming to take me away, oh my!

I wonder if this new -- Lawsuit spam. Just sue the entire country, hoping enough people will settle our of court to pay the laywers and make a nice profit too. Welcome to a Sue-happy America!

Re:Good News For Nerds

[ambisinistral]

Heh, I was shocked my submission of the above article as a slashdot poll was rejected. Sure would have been better than that "gee, I wish I could think of a poll" crap they have running right now.

Unfortunately..

[SpaceTaxi]

...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..."

Re:Unfortunately..

[DocMiata]

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.)

Re:Unfortunately..

[leeet]

yeah... true... Maybe I should get a coffee at KFC. I wonder if *they* got sued.. hmmm?

Re:Unfortunately..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Unfortunately..

[poot_rootbeer]

Unfortunately, it appears that posting "our legal system is all about who has the deeper pockets" is still sufficient to get moderated up to +5 Insightful on Slashdot.

I could provide countless examples that disprove this statement, but why bother? I won't change anyone's mind.

Sometimes it seems like the Slashdot crowd would rather sit around clucking to each other about how we're all going to Hell in a handbasket than actually FIGHT against anything they find unjust.

GET UP, people! It's not someone else's problem. It's YOUR PROBLEM.

Re:Unfortunately..

[LineNoiz]

I ain't getting sued. So, no it's not MY PROBLEM. It is indeed SOMEONE ELSES problem. Notably, someone who is getting sued.

Re:Unfortunately..

[1010011010]

Then they should have sent her free "P4" cards, rather than trying to squeeze $20/card to fix their problem.

Re:Unfortunately..

[letxa2000]

I agree. If I were asked to pay a reconnect fee I'd tell them "Thanks, been nice doing business with you, I've gotta make a call to my local cable TV company."

I'm so sick of big businesses making up for their technical or business insufficiencies through legislation and lawsuits. At the very least RIAA goes after endusers that they (apparently) have evidence have been sharing files. But for DirecTV to go after everyone that ever purchased a certain type of hardware is essentially like the RIAA sending a nastygram to everyone that bought a computer and has broadband. Sure, you'll probably catch some bad guys but your selection criteria is so broad as to be abusive.

It's almost like the cops putting up a roadblock on the freeway and issuing a speeding violation to 6 out of every 10 people because, on average, 60% of people speed. It should be just as illegal for DirecTV to use that method as it is for police.

Re:Unfortunately..

[Talking Goat]

"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.

Re:Unfortunately..

[Eric Smith]

They did that to me back when I had unsubscribed for a while, then tried to reactivate. They claimed that my smartcard (an H card) was "broken", and that I'd have to pay $75 for a new card (HU). I asked them how they new that my old card was broken, since at the time the receiver and smartcard had been powered off for months, and I still hadn't powered them up again.

They kept insisting that the card was broken. I suggested to them that the only way they could know it was broken was if they had deliberately "broken" it somehow. They finally conceded that there was nothing actually wrong with the card and agreed to send me the new card at no charge. They never admitted that the need for a new card was solely because of their own incompetence in making/buying poorly designed cards that are easy to crack.

I wonder if the contract(s) between DirecTV and News Datacom, their security provider, has any explicit guarantees about the level of security of the card. Certainly if I was a DirecTV shareholder, I'd be livid. Admittedly it is difficult and a lot of work to produce a reasonably secure system, but the News Datacom stuff has been absolutely laughable.

And to keep this on topic, I'm one of the zillion people who has at some point in time purchased a smart card reader/programmer. I purchased it for uses that have nothing to do with any sort of television reception, satellite or otherwise, but I did buy it from a company that seemed to cater to satellite cracking, so maybe I can expect a letter from DirecTV. I'd love to see them prove that I've done anything illegal with it, or that posession of a smart card reader/programmer is inherently illegal. Remember that the burden of proof is on them.

Re:Unfortunately..

[nmg196]

There have been no hacks for the UK Sky system for many years. Since they last changed the encryption system several years ago, nobody has produced a working hack. So what makes you think that every system is inherantly hackable and has a hack already waiting to be released? It's obviously perfectly possible to make an uncrackable system as otherwise someone would have cracked it by now. Bollocks sir, pure bollocks.

Re:Unfortunately..

[SillySlashdotName]

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.

And this was her problem (to the tune of $20 each) how? Just because DirecTV wanted it to be her problem instead of theirs?

Re:Unfortunately..

[racermd]

I got free "P4" cards a few months ago as replacements for my own boxes. I was in the process of moving and had disabled all of my boxes for about a month (I was too busy packing, moving, and unpacking to watch TV, even when they weren't packed up). There's no reason why DTV needs to charge for the new cards. If they're making it a requirement in order to use their (paid-for) service, charging customers for even more additional equipment is customer-service suicide. The fact that customers are already paying over $100 for each TV for the boxes is enough. The service itself should more than pay for the access cards and would be the breaking point for this border-line customer.

How do they know...

[tinrobot]

...exactly WHO purchased smart card writers?

This is what scares me more than anything. Did the company who makes the writers give up their customer list or something, or does DirectTV have the sales records of every electronics store in North America?

Next thing you know, they'll be searching all the grocery store "Saver's Clubs" membership lists for people who buy vodka and throw them in the slammer for drunk-driving. Pre-emptively, of course...

Re:How do they know...

[EricWright]

Read the article. They are raiding operations of websites selling pirating hardware. As part of the raid, they are confiscating customer databases. Not to difficult to find a programmer who can extract all customer purchases within 5 minutes at that point.

Re:Eyeing my Detonator ][ programmer...

[Mongo222]

As a proud american let me reply to you in this manor.... Got any job openings wherever you are? The land of the Brave, and the Home of the free isn't either one anymore and I'm tired of it. I'M DONE! I QUIT. GET ME OUT OF HERE.

Re: The bastion of freedom and democracy

[gizmonic]

Here is your list:

You pretty much have to settle

[Anonymous Coward]

I got slapped with this recently for buying a smartcard programmer that I was using to play with Sunray terminals a few years back. I went to a lawyer (and of course had to pay him!) and sure enough the cheapest way out is to pay them the $3500 regardless of what you used the device for. The cases are filed in FEDERAL court. Federal court was described to me as "A vending machine that takes $10,000 coins...and several of them at that" to plead your case before a verdict is even reached. Worst thing about this is that I've been a Directv subscriber for years and PAY for all the channels! My lawyer contacted the EFF and they wouldn't do a damn thing. Needless to say Directv just lost my ~$100 a month which is pretty #$#& stupid considering it would only take 3 years to cover the $3500. So basically I'm out $4K including the lawyer for trying to do some neat stuff with smartcard authentication.

Re:You pretty much have to settle

[TheRaven64]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you only had to pay anything if:

1. You used a lawyer, or
2. You lost the case.

If you did have a valid reason for owning the device, and you paid for all of the channels, then this could have been resolved simply without actually getting the legal system involved. Firstly, you write back saying `see you in court'. Next, you send to their lawyers:

1. A copy of your DirecTV bills for the last year.
2. A copy of the sunray manual (with the pasages about the use of the smartcard reader highlighted).
3. A covering letter saying that you will be presenting this evidence in court, but if they drop the case, and provide you with a written appology and $3500 in compensation, then you will not persue a claim of $100000 in damages for barratry against them.

If, after this, their lawyer advises them to persue the case then they should get new lawyers.

Re:You pretty much have to settle

[JDBrechtel]

Some people are doing similar to what you've mentioned now and a few cases have been won. I don't think any counter suits have been won yet though...

Re:You pretty much have to settle

[/dev/trash]

That pretty much sucks.
I am not sure why you thought the EFF would get involved though. Perhaps if you dealing in kiddie pron or something like that they'd be right in with ya.

Website for targetted consumers

[jvbunte]

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.

Re:Website for targetted consumers

[ad0gg]

Um how do they get default judgement if you ignore the letter? They have to serve you the papers for the lawsuit.

Re:Website for targetted consumers

[guacamolefoo]

Um how do they get default judgement if you ignore the letter? They have to serve you the papers for the lawsuit.

Lots of dumbshits get legal papers with things like "NOTICE TO PLEAD" and "COMPLAINT" written all over the front of them, usually delivered by guys in uniforms, and they throw them in the trash.

After all, it's not unusual to see the Sheriff in the trailer park, and he's probably just being neighborly and bringing your mail up from the mailbox.

GF.

I work with smart cards and I don't get it.

[John Harrison]

What is the difference between a smart card reader and a smart card programmer? That you can glitch the card with the programmer? I can (and do) "program" smart cards with any old ISO-7816 compliant reader.

Do I need something other than a PC attached smart card reader and a knowledge of how to send an APDU to the card to unloop it? What is it that makes the "programmer" special?

The term "smart card reader" often confuses those new to smart cards. All "smart card readers" are also "smart card writers" (a term which will give you away as a newbie) in that they can send information to the card and recieve information from it.

Re:I work with smart cards and I don't get it.

[JDBrechtel]

Yes, glitching is what makes DTV smart card programmers different. They also have a flashable amtel but some standard smart card readers have that too I believe.

Legal?

[paranode]

"They're obtaining lists of who purchased the devices during raids against the sites that offer them for sale."

Is it just me or does this sound highly illegal? When a place gets raided (assuming it was by law enforcement) doesn't law enforcement keep the evidence? Why would DirecTV of all people just be given this information when no laws have been proven broken? This sounds like another mockery of the justice system to me.

Re:Legal?

[JDBrechtel]

Also, DTV sues the company that got raided for damages for each individual device sold...THEN DTV turns around and sends these extortion letters to EACH end users for the SAME damages!

Re:Legal?

[AugustFalcon]

Actually, in the cases we have handled, the raids have taken place in Canada and the lists of those who purchased by credit card have made their way into the DirectTV hands. Since this is based on among other things copyright law the holder gets to see who might have taken his intellectual property.

If I recall correctly, the demand letter was originally for either $5,000.00 or $7,500.00 USD. They send a copy of the proposed writ along with the letter. It usually gets the target's attention.

Freedomfight.ca

[DaveOke]

This has been going on for quite some time now. Also DirecTV and DishNetwork are shutting down discussion sites. Read more at freedomfight.ca

Re:Gee.. I wonder..

[SpaceLifeForm]

DRM.

"Equal protection under the law"...

[Unknown Kadath]

...means nothing if you can't afford to defend yourself against a corporation's lawyers. Why are corporate entities, extant only by legislation, afforded the same privileges in the judicial system as actual people? (Cynics need not reply, I already know the an$$$wer.)

Incidentally, I notice DirecTV is joining in the *AA's efforts to hijack the concept of "theft."

-Carolyn

very offended

[mcc]

This is an outrage! I am going to begin boycotting directtv immediately!*

* except, um... the reason i don't have directtv already is because i don't own a television.... .. i guess directtv probably isn't very scared by my boycott. phooey.

Re:very offended

[binford2k]

Do like I did and email directv informing them of your decision to not purchase their service, citing this as the reason why.

Here is the Legal Papers Sent

[cdf12345]

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/

Re:Here is the Legal Papers Sent

[$uperjay]

Um, report them for fraud?

They refer to the devices as illegal. Smart card readers are not illegal, to the best of my knowledge, unless they're made out of, say, babies, or Cuban cigars.

No, there is no

[autopr0n]

Sorry, a smartcard 'reader' is nothing more then a standard sereal port with slightly diffrent voltages and a diffrent pin-out pattern. The whole point of a smartcard is that it's a programmable computer. You can build a smart-card reader with just a few resistors.

Re:No, there is no

[Tackhead]

> Sorry, a smartcard 'reader' is nothing more then a standard sereal port with slightly diffrent voltages and a diffrent pin-out pattern. The whole point of a smartcard is that it's a programmable computer. You can build a smart-card reader with just a few resistors.

Solution obvious! Resistors can be had anywhere. Sue everybody who's ever bought components from Digi-Key, Jameco, Mouser and even Radio Shack!

Let resistance be futile!

Re:No, there is no

[umrgregg]

Of course, we know how easy it would be to find out who'd been buying resistors at radio shack... "Whats up with John Doe?! Man, this guy has enough electronics to build ten nukes..."

Re:No, there is no

[Lershac]

We had better keep GWB from finding that out, or John Doe could have a load of american whoopass delivered right to his door too!

Saddam: "I wasn't going to KILL anyone with that!"

They don't have to...

[TWX]

... since they have gotten subsidies in the form of taxes paid by consumers given to them for the purchases of blank media and drives.

Personally, I think that if this is the case, we should be allowed to duplicate all of the music that we want, since we are effectively being taxed on it before we even do the act.

Re:I'm sorry...

[einTier]

Right. They are suing these people in Federal Court. I am good friends with a lawyer handling the defense for several of these cases. Right off the bat, he's asking for for $3,000 in retainer fees. He anticipates actually fighting the whole thing out -- assuming no one settles -- could easily cost over $10,000 for his clients. Again, that's if no one bothers to appeal.

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.

Welcome to the New World Order

[AllieA]

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.

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[AllieA]

That was supposed to be "thought crime", not "through crime"

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[phuturephunk]

You could have worded that more diplomatically to better drive home your point..But then again, we can't expect everything from *grownups*... ..In fact *grownups* are the people who are egregiously abusing our law system with lawsuits like this instead of trying to find a better business model..

So why don't you take your grownup banter, and POUND IT UP YOUR GROWNUP ASS!..

clear enough *old man*..?

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[Brahmastra]

At least the Americans only get sued pre-emptively. Foreigners, especially darkies, get pre-emptively blow to bits by the American military

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[crivens]

I've always stated that "crime does pay".

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[taernim]

Ever read 1984? Welcome to ThoughtCrime.

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[Tailhook]

I am a Republican, so I *MUST* be bigoted, homophobic, chauvinist.

I don't like it much either, hypocrite.

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[konquered]

True enough. You also remind me of this lovely levy on blank audio recording media we have in Canada.

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[bobbozzo]

We have those on cassete tapes in the US, and on AUDIO CD-R's. (cd-rxg discs retail for up to $12.99 each! cheapest on froogle is $3.99 each!)
Of course most people aren't stupid enough to buy an Audio CD-Recorder when a computer works fine.

Re:Welcome to the New World Order

[phuturephunk]

..Sterling Comebacks..

Other people who can be arrested/sued...

[subzero_ice]

People who own lighter can be arrested for being probable arsonist and people with lighter fluid as bomb makers. I think it time somebody stood up and fought the battle all the way. I think /. readers should support a fellow /. reader who has received this threat for buying a smart card programmer and is not using it for illegal purposes. What if the guy bought the smart card programmer for building a secure network because he/she was paranoid about privacy?? Its time these corporations are taught a lesson. Its time we the consumers reminded the corporations that we the consumers are the very reason why they are in existence and without us they are worthless.

Damn damn damn!

[AndroidCat]

I was going to buy one of those smartcard programmers to steal free wash and dry in my building's laundry room. But now DirecTV is going to sue me if I do. Damn you!

Re:BARRATRY! ddi you read the article?

[ReelOddeeo]

Really, for shame. You know better than this. You read the article.

Eeeek

[Gumshoe]

From the article:

[...] Mercer admits that DirecTV has dismissed some cases after the defendant proved his or her innocence to the company's satisfaction.

If that paragraph doesn't scare the pants off of you, it should. Why should I or anyone else have to prove our innocence to a private company?

So if I buy gloves at Sears.....

[leeet]

..Does it make me a bulglar automatically?

Yes I admit that if you bought your reader at www.crackdtv.com well you kinda asked for it (kinda like shopping at Thieves r Us..?)

But if you bought it with another intend, then they should not bother you. In fact, they should not even bother you unless they have some proofs or a solid case.

Yes you can buy a gun at walmart. Does it make you a killer? I've used smartcard readers/coders for door entry in the past. It is becoming more and more popular in credit cards.

They are unfortunately using weak arguments to defend their case I believe. Like someone said, this is a blatant case of mass extortion / black mail. Take on the poor folks who cant defend themselve while (I bet) the lawyers get a nice fee of that $3500 (50% from my experience).

Re:So if I buy gloves at Sears.....

[mindstrm]

Yes, but let's say there was a rash of organized burglaries, and it was known they all used a certain type of glove, only sold at one store in town.

Investigators would find out the customer list, and use that as a starting point. Does simply having those gloves make you guilty? Of course not. IS that enough for them to take you to court? Of course not.. but it will likely lead you to the culprits, and then you can gather other evidence.

If you bought a smartcard programmer, they will not be able to convict based on only that, they would have to have other evidence.

Re:So if I buy gloves at Sears.....

[grwufwuf]

If you bought a smartcard programmer, they will not be able to convict based on only that, they would have to have other evidence.

That's the 'fun' part about the difference between criminal and civil cases. They don't need to prove it, just talk a jury or a judge into buying their side of the story. To defend oneself against what will quickly become a team of trial lawyers who would have argued the same case enough to know just what works (after say the first **200** cases or so I'd expect a D-TV plantiff could have a shot at successfully arguing the court case while sleeping) a defendant would need to fork over serious money for a defence. Therein lies a big loophole that this class of company can crawl through. Would you pay $3500 and loose a security door locking system (assuming a perfectly legal reason for having said equipment; such reasons DO exist!) or as much as humanly possible for the best defense against such a much practiced argument in court. Then for all you efforts you still might loose...

Must be what 'less government' means to business leaders. Who needs a police state with this kind of tactic coming down the road? Shit! Give me higher taxes please...

I know this was a joke

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:I know this was a joke

[brakk]

Yes, it was just a joke, and yes, you're probably right, but what about the bill posted earlier today that would make it a felony to trade mp3s on P2P networks? That would be a criminal matter tried in criminal courts and have the same effect.

Re:I know this was a joke

[dr_dank]

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

Perhaps the court-end of things are separate, but what about law enforcement? It says in the article that authorities have been along on these raids as hired goons. Those are personnel that could be used finding truly dangerous people.

Re:I know this was a joke

[guacamolefoo]

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.

Ummmm...not true. It may in fact clog things up. District Court judges hear criminal and civil cases. The criminal stuff gets heard first because of speedy trial acts and civil rights implications involved with holding suspects in jail without trying them (please ignore Camp X-Ray for purposes of this discussion).

Federal judges despise drug cases in particular, because these have overburdened the courts terribly -- federal courts were never intended to be used as courts of first resort for ordinary criminal matters, but with increased federalization of crimes, this is becoming a reality. District courthouses look more like the local justice of the peace with every passing day.

In any case, the civil matters get the last tit, since cases (generally) will not be dismissed as a result of a court taking too long. Meretorious (as opposed to meretricious) cases will take longer to reach resolution, and this is a problem.

In addition, there is a chronic understaffing situtation with federal judges -- appointments are increasingly political and vacancies can exist for some time as a result. Even if the "hot" appointment is in district A, the appointment in district X may be held up as a bargaining chip while the Senate thaws out Strom Thurmond to cast a tie-breaker (no more, alas).

In short, the criminal stuff will likely not suffer, but the civil stuff will tend to age more before being dealt with. In some cases, it will depend on your district. For instance, if you are in a hot asbestos district, the civil dockets are terrible. My local federal court is in decent shape, but if a judge dies unexpectedly, we could be screwed.

GF.

Re:I know this was a joke

[Darth_Burrito]

On the contrary, I would speculate that resources for the criminal and civil court systems are at some point bound together. There's only so much money and so many lawyers to go around.

Re:I know this was a joke

[Stalemate]

my job and my wife are separate, but someone there aren't enough resources to do either right

I received a couple of emails today that might help you with this. Something about viagra and enlargements. Probably won't help much with your job though.

Re:I know this was a joke

[Rimbo]

Of course; the criminal courts aren't clogged with these cases, they're clogged with cases for the War On Drugs.

Re:I know this was a joke

[TheMidget]

In short, the criminal stuff will likely not suffer, but the civil stuff will tend to age more before being dealt with. In some cases, it will depend on your district. For instance, if you are in a hot asbestos district, the civil dockets are terrible. My local federal court is in decent shape, but if a judge dies unexpectedly, we could be screwed.

So, why are all you people so worried? Just throw the damn letter into the trash, and maybe ten years later the court will have time to hear the matter. Still ten years later, maybe, they will take a decision. And maybe 20 years may have been enough that Direct TV may have gone out of business, or has been bought up by a competitor, or has felt that pursuing those suits is not worthwhile that public relations ill-will that they generate. Or 20 years will have been enough that the judge handling your case has retired, or has croaked.

Chill out, time is on your side!

Its about the intent.

[dmeranda]

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.

Re:Its about the intent.

[AndroidCat]

And what if the advertisement changed after you bought the reader? i.e. when you bought it the company was selling it for normal security uses, etc. Later they realized that there was BigBuck$ to be made pushing illegal uses. Who keeps a copy of an ad or web site years later? (Other than the wayback machine at archive.org.)

Re:Its about the intent.

[dmeranda]

ha ha. Yes, but the premise was different. In the movie you were basically guilty just for thinking (having the intent). In the real US (as I should have clarified), you need to have both the intent and have performed some action which progresses toward that intent, i.e., you bought a smartcard reader. This is BTW why many of the Ten Commandments are also codified in US Law (such as murder), but not all of them (such as coveting). We humans just can't fairly enforce law based only on intent or thought only. But guess what? Law suits designed for intimidation and settlement can be based soley on intent, and yes, they are often unfair.

Since showing intent is obviously a highly subjective and murky decision (without Tome Cruise's special mind-reading future-telling technology), the establishment of guilt is very much in a perpetual gray area and very expensive to argue before a court. That's why DirecTV doesn't really want these suits to go to trial, and also who almost everybody will settle, the guilty and innocent alike.

Re:Its about the intent.

[HiThere]

Actually, I think they want to suits to be settled so they can make a bunch of extra money. I suspect that they're going broke, and this is an attempt to stay afloat without admitting anything.

If you own stock, you might consider whether it's a wise investment.

Re:Its about the intent.

[fermion]

Let's take this to an analogy. Porsches are designed to be driven very fast. Much faster than the posted speed limits in the U.S. They can be driven within the speed limits, but are engineered to work at peak effeciency when driven above those limits.

Given this fact pattern, it is reasonable for police department to mail out speeding tickets to every Porsche owner on a periodic basis. The dangers of fast driving is much more tangible than the dangers of stealing content. The later we may be taking about a few cents per diluted share. The former we are taking about an innocents person life.

I think by DirectTV reasoning the answer would be yes. The Porsche driver probably does drive above posted speeds. If the ticket were mailed once a year it would only be $100 and a trip to defensive driving.

Re:Its about the intent.

[rhizome]

And as the sites advertised as such, showing that was your intent is much easier.

Are these devices available anywhere *besides* gray stores? Proportionally, if the gray stores outnumber the "legit intent" stores (by your logic), a prospective customer might assume that one is limited in the kinds of stores that these devices are available. If MurderMart is the only gun shop around, and it's a huge chain that extends to miles around, surely ones intent can't be divined by an inability to find Dubya's Shoot Shop out behind the Hardee's.

IANAL: Vexatious Litigant

[HaeMaker]

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?

Re:IANAL: Vexatious Litigant

[stratjakt]

I believe that law does not apply to corporations who are filing through an attorney who is a member of the bar.

Thats the law to keep the crazy lady down the road from suing everyone who doesnt like her 1200 cats.

However, IANAL. Maybe the bar association could have something to say about it. Believe it or not, lawyers are supposed to behave ethically.

Even so, they can sue so long as they reasonably believe they have a case. Though it does seem like suing everyone capable of duplicating keys because your house was broken into.

Re:IANAL: Vexatious Litigant

[Misch]

It's called anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.) $cientology was forced to pay a record $500,000 fine because of their continued legal badgering. (On top of a $2.5 million judgement that arose from a case filed in 1980 and dragged out for the better part of 22 years)

Re:IANAL: Vexatious Litigant

[poot_rootbeer]

I agree, the EFF should get involved.

This "vexatious litigant" law you cite sounds like a clear violation of plaintiffs' rights and the California Supreme Court out to strike it down.

Re:IANAL: Vexatious Litigant

[Guppy06]

"I don't know if there is a US law that is complimentary, but in California,"

I know what you meant, but... well... that's an interesting way of phrasing that. :)

Re:FUCK ME - PEOPLE ARE USELESS - RTFA

[teamhasnoi]

Maybe if you read the whole article instead of hitting 'reply' halfway through, you'd see that 'This guy' (Sosa) has joined a suit against Direct TV. He's now liable for 1/7th of the 100,000 in laywer fees and court costs.

Maybe this qualifies as 'balls'. Next time RTFA, and keep your kneejerk reactions to yourself.

So am I going to get a letter?

[plcurechax]

I own a smartcard reader/programmer (most devices are both readers and programmers, it's just a serial interface to a "chip card" aka smartcard.) made by Schlumberger, and the SmartCard Developer's Kit from Amazon, which I bought to play with Smartcard support for Linux.

So am I going to get a letter from DirectTV?

Re:So am I going to get a letter?

[EricWright]

I own a smartcard reader/programmer (most devices are both readers and programmers, it's just a serial interface to a "chip card" aka smartcard.) made by Schlumberger, and the SmartCard Developer's Kit from Amazon, which I bought to play with Smartcard support for Linux.

So am I going to get a letter from DirectTV?

Yes.
--

Re:So am I going to get a letter?

[malfunct]

I think that an important difference between the "smartcard programmers" that DirectTV is suing for and the standard smartcard readers (which are also writers of course, since they really don't do anything but buffer some voltages as far as I can tell) is that the ones designed to reprogram DirectTV smart cards have specific circuitry to "glitch" the DirecTV card and bypass the tamper protection on the card. Granted you can use the readers with "glitching" circuitry to program normal legal cards but its hard to argue that a device with special circuitry to bypass tamper resistance is for any other purpose than the illegal one when for much cheaper you can get a normal writer that will achieve the legal results.

Re:So am I going to get a letter?

[plcurechax]

Granted you can use the readers with "glitching" circuitry to program normal legal cards but its hard to argue that a device with special circuitry to bypass tamper resistance is for any other purpose than the illegal one when for much cheaper you can get a normal writer that will achieve the legal results.

Other than actually testing vendor claims that their smartcard products are not vulrenable to glitching, and other well known attacks (see Cryptography Research)

Re:FUCK ME - PEOPLE ARE USELESS

[finkployd]

Hey, why not stage a daring command raid on the company headquarters and cap the board of directors? Damn lazy bastards.

Perhaps the reason is that they only want to get on with their lives, and the "extortion" payment they made was easier and more convienent than hiring a lawyer and engaging in a long court battle where they very likely stand to lose more than the extortion payment.

My question is where the hell is the government that is supposed to protect it's citizens from these corporate mobsters?

Finkployd

No, it's not...

[lommer]

The definition of barratry, IIRC, is threatening large litigation in order to coerce someone into some action, while having no intention of taking the litigous action if the person fails to do something. (I.e. DTV demands the $3500 and device from you, or they will sue you, but then when you ignore them they don't actually sue you.)

This is not a case of barratry, because DTV is actually following through with the lawsuits.

Re:No, it's not...

[wcb4]

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

stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone who cries "it's obvious what they were going to use it for", consider Nintendo going after sellers of Gameboy cartridge writers and EPROM carts (was it Lik Sang? Can't remember.)

Anyway, Nintendo managed to get them shut down because their carts were "obviously" being used to pirate games. Never mind that 90% of their customers were game developers (such as myself). Those who were releasing commercial games were happy to get their hands on hardware cheaper than Nintendo was charging (with the 3rd party carts it cheap to get all our beta testers set up with the game - we bought maybe 20 and they could then test using off-the-shelf Gameboys); the hobbyist developers finally had a decent source of development hardware.

Which is exactly the same type of problem here. I'm not presuming 90% - but at least one person buying a smartcard reader probably had a legitimate purpose.

If there's a moral to this story could be: Don't charge too much for your product (DirectTV & cable companies). And destroy your customer order lists as soon as those orders are satisfied.

class action suit anyone?

[Lucretius]

This is an interesting tactic by DirectTV. From the sounds of it, this really isn't that expensive a way for them to not only stop some no-effort hackers from stealing their signal (as we all know, there are many who just won't stop because they are sent a letter like this), and make some revenue at the same time. I mean, if one of their operators makes 1 settlement per month, they have most likely more than paid their salary. Of course, they have to pay the lawyers a bit of money to sign these letters, but most likely not all that much (my guess is that very few of these actually go to trial, that would take money on DirectTV's side of the game as well).

What I'm curious about is if there is any organization of a class action suit against DirectTV, where the class is the people who have been incorrectly identified by DirectTV as pirates? They would most likely be liable for mental anguish and defamation as well (seriouslly, blaming someone for being a pirate could be very damaging to them, especially to buisiness people).

Here's to hopin'

DirecTV sues everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

DirecTV has begun filing lawsuits against anyone not legally deceased.
"My point is, if you're alive, then it's possible that you could be pirating DirecTV," says DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer, "If you knowingly live in a world where people are able to pirate DirecTV, and you have the ability somewhere within you to do so, and yet you claim you are not - to me, that's a stretch."
In related news, DirecTV's earnings forecast for this quarter jumped to $15.75 trillion, as everyone alive will be forced to pay a minimum $3500 settlement for their potential acts of piracy.

Not just the RIAA

[StringBlade]

In the past 5-10 years it seems lawsuits of this sort have increased in quantity, and it's not just the RIAA -- it's every big corporation.

My gut feeling points at two major contributing factors in this timeframe: the Microsoft/Netscape case and the DMCA. Why these two? Firstly, as is clear to anyone who even walks into a Best Buy or other software retailer, Microsoft is not being punished for unethical business practices. This precedent of a slap on the wrist (at worst) for large corporations who misbehave has taken hold of the greedy upper management in these businesses. They are not afraid of the U.S. government because it's clear to them as long as G. W. Bush is in place with an all-republican congress, big business has nothing to worry about.

Which leads me to the second point - the DMCA. It's a wonderful little piece of legislation that content providers of copyrighted material have been able to use to blungent anyone who so much as think about how to get around copyprotection mechanisms.

Therefore:
1. Scare your customers $h1^less
2. ???
3. Profit!

Seems to be a plausable business model to these people.

Re:Not just the RIAA

[Christianfreak]

Oh yes I keep forgetting, big businesses screw people (blame the Republicans), Everyone in the middle-east hates us (blame the Republicans), politicians don't understand technology (blame the Republicans), the sky is falling BLAME THE REPUBLICANS!!!

I can't imagine what a rosy place we would live in if Gore were president and all the Republicans suddenly dropped of the face of the earth. I'm sure that not only would we stop seeing bad legislation, dumb law-suits but an end to crime and poverty and world-peace ...

Good grief, its not like Enron and World-com started their underhanded accounting the minute Bush took office, or that DTV started screwing its own customers, or that Microsoft suddenly became evil all as soon as there were Republicans at the helm. Remember that the Dems are the ones that put through the DMCA and its been Dems lining up to line the coffers of Hollywood and enacting new copyright legislation.

Not that the Republicans have been any better but its both parties that are in the pockets of corporations, both parties are getting their palms greased. What's needed is a change in power completely from the old institutions. We the people need to stop putting up with it because ultimatley we elect the corporations to power by voting for corrupt representatives and by buying their useless crap.

Re:Not just the RIAA

[MickLinux]

It's not a case of George Bush. George Bush, the "gentler, kinder Republican", is no different than Al Gore, the "fiscally responsible Democrat". Nor is he different than any of the people we have in the Senate or Congress.

If this were just a case of George Bush, then no company would jump, because they have to deal with what comes four years later.

This is a case where the system is locked up, and the largest companies know it. This is a case of one party rule, and it ain't Democrats. It ain't Republicans. It's rule by the United DemPublicans.

Now, what you are seeing is that looting is becoming standard. Here's the process described to me: As looting overwhelms production, money and credit becomes pointless: you're likely to have it stolen anyways. Therefore, the economy shifts from a capital-based economy to one based on connections and trust.

But an economy based on connections and trust is a lot less efficient than one based on capital. If you will, in a capital economy, you can trust everybody. Therefore, you can do business with everybody. That allows competition (but does not mandate it), which increases the efficiency of the system. But if you're limited to doing business with just those whom you know, then all economic activity must be local, and specialization is very limited. Therefore the advantages of mass production are also limited, and the efficiency is less.

So then you get masse starvation, since the same amount of land cannot provide as much food as it used to. When that happens, being "on top" becomes a matter of survival for those who are on top. They *have* to trample those beneath them to maintain their position, but in so doing, if they lose their position, they are completely destroyed.

So what happens then is that you get every level of power battling every other similar level of power, and the most violent battles happen at the top. In such as situation, it is easy to get an emperor. Problem is, though, that as any emperor comes to the throne, he becomes a target for assassination by others near the top in a version of "king of the mountain". So the emperorship becomes more and more risky, until nobody will take it: to take it means to be shackled, then killed.

At that point, the old government disolves, and you end up with lower governments breaking up into regions.

Meanwhile, though, those "governments" that stay out of wars more rather than less end up being more prosperous. Thus the cycle starts over again, as you progress to peace and capitalism, then competition for the most peaceful capitalistic system of all, and then economic dominance followed by resentment of the dominated countries, followed by attacks against the economy of the top country, followed by war after war after war. All on the order of about a thousand years or so.

Re:Not just the RIAA

[StringBlade]

I hold no love for Democrats either. They (the ones that make it to office anyway) seem to have this frightening affinity for making the government run everything (and this is the part that surprises me about Bush, what with the Patriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security). Don't delude yourself into thinking all blame falls squarely on one party or another. The truth of the matter is the blame falls on both parties and on the people of the United States for having such a complacient attitude towards right-revoking (or restricting) laws that are proposed and passed through Congress and the White House.

My point was not that it's a Republican problem or a Democrat problem - its a rogue government problem and not enough people are actively involved in the democratic process and who possess an educated opinion on the matters of state.

Of course Microsoft was playing dirty pool before Bush. Of course large corporations were lying about the profits during a democrat-controlled Senate, but the inactions of the U.S. government with regard to Microsoft put MS into a golden halo for other unethical businesses to idolize. Hell, Bill Clinton was probably idolized by many because of his amazing charisma and his ability to slip out of even the most bleek situations (think Lewinski) -- he wasn't Slick Willy because he got stuck. And I don't think anyone besides Adobe, DirectTV, and other content providers think the DMCA is (or ever was) a good idea.

Why this is going to work.

[mindstrm]

Now, I think this type of blanket lawsuit is rediculous.. however....

I'm willing to be that the vast majority of the devices in question, from these particular vendors, WERE used to pirate DirecTV. Does that mean you are guilty if you didn't use it for that? Certainly not.. but a great many of the poeple who got letters probably ARE guilty.

This makes me sick, it's not playing fair.. however... DirecTV may very well succeed. After all, there is pretty clear precedent in the US about stealing satellite TV programming, or cable programming. (Please, on lectures about why it's not really stealing, you are preaching to the choir. The fact is, it's considered theft of service, and you can get in deep sheep for it in the US.)

If you were using that reader for some legitimate purpose, like goofing around at home, that's all fine and dandy.. but you would be the minotiry. A lot of those who will complain about this suit are people who DID use it to help people steal TV programming.

Sig

[brakk]

"Rock and Roll is no solution- my daughter singing AC/DC"

That's how I sing it too. :P

"Rock and Roll is no solution
Rock and Roll is going to die."

or "Rock and Roll is nose polution"

yes, yes, off topic and all that.

Typical reporting from the Register

[guacamolefoo]

On Wednesday parent company Hughes Electronics reported strong second quarter results, with $2.4 million in revenue, driven by DirecTV's subscriber growth. It ended the quarter with 11.6 million subscribers paying an average of $61 a month for service.

Ummmm...that's un-possible. 11,600,000 times $61 times 3 mo. (in a quarter) = 2,122,800,000. Plus other junk, like ads, pay-per-view, etc., I suspect that brings Directv's revenues close to 2.4 Billion per quarter. Think Carl Sagan, folks.

A little fact-checking or editing would be nice.

GF.

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[EricWright]

Your fallacious assumption is that ALL revenue for Hughes Electronics comes from DirecTV's subscriber base.

Now, I agree something looks wrong here... either s/million/billion/ or s/revenue/profit/

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[guacamolefoo]

AP news:

Hughes Electronics returns to profit in quarter on strong growth at DirecTV
GARY GENTILE
Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - Hughes Electronics Corp. posted a profit for the second quarter driven by a jump in revenue and profit at its DirecTV satellite television unit, the company reported Wednesday.

Hughes also raised its revenue estimates for the full year.

The El Segundo-based company reported net income of $21.6 million in the quarter ended June 30, in contrast to a net loss of $155.1 million in the same period last year.

Excluding one-time gains, Hughes said it was the first time since 1999 that the company was able to report net income.

"We almost forgot how to spell it," quipped Jack Shaw, Hughes president and chief executive officer.

The company's DirecTV business is the leading satellite television service.

Hughes does not report per share earnings because it is a tracking stock of General Motors. Its earnings are reflected in GM's results.

Hughes' second quarter revenue increased 8.1 percent to $2.37 billion, compared to $2.19 billion in the same period last year.

Hughes also said Wednesday that it has agreed to pay Boeing Co. $360 million to settle a dispute stemming from the $3.75 billion deal in which Boeing bought Hughes' satellite-making business in 2000. The two companies also agreed to restructure Boeing's contract to build Hughes' Spaceway broadband satellite system.

Separately, Boeing said Wednesday it would take a $1.1 billion charge to reflect weaknesses in its commercial satellite business.

Hughes benefited in the second quarter by the performance of DirecTV, where revenue jumped 16 percent to $1.8 billion in the period. The service added 181,000 net subscribers and raised its earnings per subscriber by $2.80 to nearly $61.

Profit margins were driven mainly by a price increase during the quarter and an increase in the number of subscribers taking local channels.

Hughes intends to boost profits at DirecTV even further by marketing new digital recorder set-top boxes to existing customers and rolling out local channels in more markets.

"It's kind of getting back to running the company for the purpose of making money," Shaw said. "We keep trying to offer more value to our customers to entice them to buy more of our service."

DirecTV ended the quarter with 11.56 million subscribers.

For the first half of the year, Hughes had a loss of $29.3 million, compared to a loss of $992.8 million in the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose to $4.6 billion from $4.2 billion.

Based on the results, Hughes raised its estimate of full-year revenue to a range of $9.7 billion to $9.8 billion from a range of $9.5 billion to $9.6 billion.

Earlier this year, GM agreed to sell a majority stake in Hughes to News Corp. That deal is still pending regulatory approval.

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[EricWright]

Yup... there you go. Net income != revenue. To put it in generic terms, revenue = gross income, profit = net income (good enough for non-accountants anyway). Looks like the people at the Register haven't learned that yet...

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[Misch]

And, if you checked your facts, you would remember that The Register is in Britain. And there, a million is the term we have for billion. And then they would be correct.

And you can find a translation guide here.

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[guacamolefoo]

That sounds bizarre enough to be British. My bad.

GF.

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[IWannaBeAnAC]

A little fact-checking or editing would be nice.

No need, you are just an ignorant yank. In the English system, one billion is one million million, or 10^12.

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[IWannaBeAnAC]

LOL. I admit it was a troll, but I feel I should point out I am not a limey.

My comment was not directed at you personally, but at citizen^H^H^H^H^H^Honsumers of the USA in general, who tend, on average, to be a bit less knowledgeable about other regions of the planet (geopolitical distribution of oil reserves excepted).

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[guacamolefoo]

Point taken. Nevertheless consider that there is only one US and there are hundreds of other countries. Its easy for people from other countries to sound learned - just be familiar with your own place and the US. Evidently, furn'ers want us to be experts on the us plus their place, too. It is, in all fairness, an impossible task.

GF.

Re:Typical reporting from the Register

[Hittite Creosote]

Or a little correct reading of the original announcement -
Hughes Electronics Corporation ... today reported that second quarter 2003 revenues increased 8.1% to $2,370.7 million

Any journalist who can't tell the difference between a comma and a full stop needs their eyes checked...

Re:so...

[realdpk]

They're screwed. They have to pay up, or go to court to fight DirecTV.

Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales ploy

[t0qer]

About a year ago our roomate bought a dish networks dish from her cousin that sells and installs the systems. He also sold her a smartcard reader that enabled "all the channels"

My wife seeing "All the channels" kept insisting that we get the same system. I reluctantly agreed to let her do it (I thought our cable was just fine though) How could one go wrong with the setup though? Every channel on direct TV (including playboy =D ) for the price of a basic subsciption.

Well about a month after we got the system we started to have problems. Dish networks sent out a signal that required us to reprogram the card. No problem, just insert the card into the programmer, attatch to computer and run a few things to update it... Cool works again. You could never tell when or where they were going to strike with the "zap signal" again. Sometimes I would come home, flip on the TV and get an error message. Nothing more irritating than having to reprogram your card every time you sit down to watch TV.

Then the zap signals got worse, they didn't just fry the smartcard, they actually fried the flash on the base unit. So we would be without TV for a week or so while we waited for our roomates cousin to come over, take the box apart, put some hokey looking things with pins across the pins of the flash chip and reflash the unit.

She would start the most ill logic fights with me "DON'T WATCH TV WHEN YOU GET HOME OR WE'LL GET ZAPPED!" she would tell me. WTF is it for then if not to watch it? (I don't think it really mattered if I was watching or not, the unit seems to be in a constant on state)

After 4 months of this shit, I finally gave up on the card reader. I set all our cards back to thier defaults and tossed them in my junk pile. I told my wife I better not catch her using it again or I would just rip the entire dishTV system out and there would be NO TV.

Now she won't get rid of the damn thing for the sake of argument. I told her from the get go I didn't really think it was a keen idea, and I think the only reason we're keeping it past the 1 year contract is because she doesn't want to admit it was a stupid purchase.

Well anyways, our roomates cousin sold a lot of these 1 year subscriptions this way. Despite knowing the problems with it, he still continues to use this as a sales device to this day. We've had a number of friends that went for "all the channels" only to come home to a black screen or an error message.

I just think it's irony that they're suing people for buying into their #1 sales hook. Hook line and sinker.

The quote that scares me...

[jhughes]

Stretch or not, Mercer admits that DirecTV has dismissed some cases after the defendant proved his or her innocence to the company's satisfaction.

I'm confused...Guilty until proven innocent?

Re:The quote that scares me...

[ONU CS Geek]

Welcome to Corporate America. No Matter what you do in their eyes, you're always Guilty until you're proved Innocent. Accused of lying? You're guilty until proven otherwise. Mistake on your credit report? Guilty until proven innocent. Maybe the big corporations should take a lesson from the federal government and give people the small thought of innocence before they string them up to drive. (Ok, I'm done ranting)

Re:The quote that scares me...

[Valar]

If you are an American, shame on you.

I'm going to dip a little into the troll pond here.

Know your law. It's people like you how just throw around legal catch phrases that end up making the law so bent and warped as it is today.
This is a civil procedure, so basically, the burden of proof is on the defendant. It's a little more complicated than that (it depends on the court in question, etc). So yes, if you really wanted to apply guilt and innocence to a procedure that as basically no concern for such things, yes, guilty until proven innocent. Civil courts aren't about that though, they are about leveling inequalities.

Welcome Rupert Murdoch.

[BigChigger]

So this is how he wants it eh? I believe I'll cancel my DirecTV and get cable - along with an additional $10 of my broadband. See ya BC

CD Burners

[shamino0]

They don't have to since they have gotten subsidies in the form of taxes paid by consumers given to them for the purchases of blank media and drives.

Those subsidies only apply to consumer audio recorders. Which is why you must buy an audio-CD-R for those devices instead of a generic CD-R. The generic ones are not tariffed, and therefore don't have the data written to them that identifies them as an audio-CD-R.

The CD-RW drive in your computer, and the generic CD-R media you use in it are not tariffed.

The tariff also doesn't apply to pro-audio CD recorders like this one

Cable Industry does the same thing

[bogie]

I can't remember if I had mentioned this before, but a relative of mine who is an attorney represented someone who was charged by a cable company for buying a descrambler. Basically the company that sold them got busted and their records were seized. They went right down the list suing every person on it. You either had to pay like 10 grand or go to jail. There was no "I have a lawyer so fuck off" going on like some people are suggesting here. Also you couldn't claim you A)never used it, or B) you never got it, C) insert excuse here. Lawyers aren't always a get out of jail free card. Those cable theft laws are the best money can buy so don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Anyway this case might not be the same since I assume their might be other legal reason to own a smart card programmer(I know nothing about the topic). Be warned that the same doesn't go for the cable descramblers they sell on the net or where ever. If the place that sells them goes down, those who weren't smart enough to pay by money order and send to a fake address etc are going to go down as well.

Re:Cable Industry does the same thing

[gte910h]

A smart card is a device that you can store things one that you'd like to keep private. They can even run crypto on them, to make things rather secure. I've used them before, and would happily purchase them from a "piracy" site if it was cheapest.

soyo dragon plus

[Ichelo]

hrmmm, i wonder if they are goign to sue everyone who bought a soyo dragon plus mobo, they all have smart card readers built in them...

Simple Solution

[Chromodromic]

Well, there's a simple way to respond to this.

Don't ever, ever purchase DirecTV's service.

As a current subscriber I can honestly say it's marginal anyway and that I, especially in the light of this news, should've just gone cable, which I fully intend to do once my year's up.

* Extreme compression of the signal causes color distortion of the picture--i.e., it looks like you're always watching a JPEG image that's been set to "max compress, min quality" even if you've got a $1,000 TV.

* Even if you've got kids and you've set your filtering to block questionable content, after 11 p.m. you're still entreated to fun "Turn to channel 595 for the HOTTEST in adult entertainment" ads that, while not exactly scarring to your kids, can still leave you wishing you'd just ordered the frickin' basic cable service.

* Some little frickin' "i" information icon keeps on popping up on your picture all the damned time, in the off bet that while you're watching your program you'll be duped into pressing the "i" info button on your remote to get the latest fun DirecTV spam-on-request they want to force down your throats.

* Did I mention that the picture sucks?

* The extra channels are grouped far away from the main local channels forcing you to switch through a buttload of pay-per-view and premium channels in the hope that you'll want what it is that, once again, they wish to force down your throats.

And now, in addition to all the above fun, they threaten to sue you even if they have no proof that you've done anything wrong to violate their service ... Gosh, DirecTV! And to think I would've had to get cable from the mafia to otherwise get this kind of fun service!

Advice: Skip DirecTV. They suck. And if you just choose to not sign up, you'll never have to worry about a possible lawsuit ...

Re:Simple Solution

[/dev/trash]

Why would you sign up for a year without test driving it for say 3 months or so? I did that when I got my DISH system and since before my only choice was 4 channels, 2 of which were snowy, I was hooked. I've seen some really crappy cable systems out there and DBS systems blow them away.

Re:Eyeing my Detonator ][ programmer...

[davebooth]

Land of the Free!*

*Some restrictions apply. Void where prohibited.

DirecTV logic

[DynamiteNeon]

Should they really be able to sue people for listening in on the signals they send out?

I suppose I could use the same logic and walk into a crowded room, yell out a bunch of stuff, and then sue everyone for listening in without my permission.

I would be equally pissed at the vendor

[British]

What ever happened to companies not selling out your info to other parties?

Okay, probably the smart card vendors didn't get paid by DTV for the customer list, but I would be mighty angry if they gave MY info to the DirectTV goons for this exortion.

If i had to buy a smart card reader, I would pay in cash. And no, I don't want to sign up for a catalog of special smart card reader offers.

So what lesson did we learn? Pay in cash for legally questionable items, such as the big bad smart card reader, or hydroponics equipment.

Because they are guilty?

[mindstrm]

Because they DID commit the crime, and their only real defence was not getting caught?

Because if you can get away with paying $3500 instead of getting a criminal record and paying a LOT more in damages for the various shit they can charge you with, it's actually a good idea, and probably legally binding?

Threatening to file a lawsuit against someone unless they settle out of court is not extortion, it's legal.

Re:Because they are guilty?

[91degrees]

You aren't going to get a criminal record for losing a civil court case. They would not be able to make this stick as a criminal case.

READ THE ARTICLE!

[MemeRot]

Don't just spout off early on to get mod points, it's incredibly annoying.

Whats next?

[Scummer]

DirecTV is going to sue people who have bought microcontrollers, since they *gasp* can be used to build an evil reader/programmer? Dilberts world is not just a comic strip... Thomas

Maybe I should switch to Dish Network?

[EChris]

I've had a DirecTV system since 1997. Now I feel *dirty* for owning one and sending my subscription money to corporate weasels. I got away from cable in the first place for the Geek Chic of having a dish on my house, and because I generally hate the cable companies.

Then again, maybe Dish will do something similar soon?

Ick.

Chris

Re:Maybe I should switch to Dish Network?

[JDBrechtel]

They already are...

http://www.freedomfight.ca/forum/showthread.php? s= &threadid=212&highlight=Dish+campaign

Criminal extortion...

[mikeselectricstuff]

It's this sort of thing makes me real glad I don't live in the USA.... These morons can't make a secure smartcard so are trying to screw money out of people instead of fixing it. I really hope enough people file criminal charges for extortion and a class action to give these bullies a serious kicking. The victims are really not helping anyone by rolling over to these bully-boy threats. I'm not familiar with the US legal system, but I don't see how it would cost $3500 to represent yourself in front of a judge, explain in plain English the legitimate uses for the reader and how this company is trying to extort money with no evidence - am I being really naive here....??? Wouldn't it be funny if a few people sent money to their Paypal link from stolen credit-card numbers cards so Paypal froze their account....! Whatever next - "you bought a computer, therefore you were programming smartcards and ripping us off..."

Here's a better one...

[StressGuy]

What about anyone who downloaded MAME or one of it's equivalents? Could Nintendo/Sony/Sega/Atari/etc. assume it was intended for piracy and sue under the same grounds?

Re:Here's a better one...

[ShavenYak]

Of those companies, I think only Sony has both the legal staff and the lack of decency to pull a stunt like this. Haven't they already gone after mod chips in similar fashion? I didn't pay much attention back then, my highest-tech game console is a Dreamcast that I got for free and from which I have almost, but not quite, gotten my money's worth of enjoyment.

A Hypothetical

[Quothz]

Let's say, for example, that I draw a comic strip. Let's further posit that I make money from it.

Now, I can sue anyone who's ever bought a photocopier, or a scanner and printer, or just a printer if my comic's on the Web.

This seems to be a precise parallel to the Direct TV suits. A photocopier is sold for the express purpose of making copies of documents which could easily be copyrighted. Clearly, since so much written material is copyrighted, there can be no legitimate use for a photocopier except to steal copyright-protected material, such as my comic. Prepare to pay, all you Xerox customers!

Re: The bastion of freedom and democracy

[Jonsey]

Would someone please enumerate for me the things I am permitted to do with the things I buy under U.S. law?

Yes, I will:
1.) First, you are NOT allowed, under any circumstances to enumerate a lis... Hold on a second, I hear a knock at the door ~A0adf#@GHMCC NO CARRIER

Boycott DirectTV and any Rupert Murdoch Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't anybody ever heard of a boycott before? Dump your TV and Satellite Dish. You'll be happier, and read more /.

I agree...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"I have a livelihood, and I have a family, and there are a lot of things that I`d rather be than right."

I really don't know what to say that... If you're not willing to fight for what's right, then anything else you want to do is worthless.

Re:I agree...

[WebMasterJoe]

If you're not willing to fight for what's right, then anything else you want to do is worthless.

Unfortunately, we have to choose our battles, and respect those who don't choose the same as we might. And frankly, I think the guy made the right choice by not fighting this battle. How much would it cost to fight this in court? A lot more than $3500, I'm sure. And that doesn't even guarantee he'd win in court. Better to focus on winning in life, and that means doing what makes you happy, while minimizing what doesn't.

I'm not saying it's right for Hughes to do this, since there are clearly legitimate uses for smartcard readers. I'm also not saying that everybody should fold when the company threatens people like this. But if you expect everybody affected to fight for this, then you have to be prepared to fight for everything yourself. If you did, then you wouldn't have any time left to live your life, and then what are you fighting for? The fact is, this sort of treatment will always happen, and it's just a part of life you have to accept. Choose your battles wisely, and remember that life just isn't fair. Go do something that makes you happy.

Re:I agree...

[Synn]

Unfortunately, we have to choose our battles, and respect those who don't choose the same as we might.

No, I'm sorry, I most certainly do not have to respect those that choose differently. When I think about how hard life was for the people that founded this country, it makes me ill when people today that enjoy the freedom their forefathers paid for in blood just roll over to some bully because it's "easier".

Re:I agree...

[WebMasterJoe]

No, I'm sorry, I most certainly do not have to respect those that choose differently.

OK, instead of "have to" respect others, I meant "should." If you don't want to respect the opinions and priorities of other people, then that's your choice. The rest of your post is just ridiculous; comparing 18th-century America with a satellite tv supplier? Do you look at every facet of your life like this? If somebody cuts you off while driving, do you chase them down and fight for your rights because of how hard life was for people who used to live here a few hundred years ago?

I don't think he "rolled over to some bully" just because it's "easier." He chose the path which would cause the least amount of harm to himself and his family. He accepted that life isn't fair, and he understood that it is beyond his abilities to right every wrong. Anybody who is as set as you are to stand up against everything that stands in your way is sure to waste your life fighting battles, rather than enjoying life.

Suddent increase for target credit cards?

[leeet]

I can already see the credit dept being flooded with requests today....

Attention all foreigners:

[Meat Blaster]

I have been struggling mightily to try and make my country more palatable to you without success. My one man campaign to convince my nation, via bitching in Internet forums and visiting the voting booths, to stop selling its self-destructive corporatist ideals to the willing buyers that lead your countries, can only be considered an utter and complete failure. My appeals to the sense of justice in others around me to think about the evils of the DMCA and these corporations who abuse it to stop us from tinkering with our electronic purchases seem to pale in comparison to their concerns about silly things like holding on to their jobs in this shitty economy or eating.

Tomorrow I will continue to let people know the injustice being done to other people they don't know using equipment they've never heard of on technology they could care less about with renewed enthusiasm thanks to your post. Keep fighting the good fight!

Re:BARRATRY? Pirates?

[GMontag]

I thought Thomas Jefferson took care of this problem around 1791?

These DTV guys need to watch the History Channel more often.

actually

[theblacksun]

If I got sold cocaine at flour prices I'd be pretty damned happy even though I would not consider touching that stuff.

Cancel your direcTV subscription if you care.

[trcooper]

Call 'em up and cancel. Give them the reason that they are extorting thousands of people, and you feel that dealing with criminals such as them would potentially be harmful to yourself.

After a few hundred of these, and something gets printed in a major US paper, they might just shit themselves and change course.

I don't have DirecTV, I use Dish, but if I did I would have called already.

Return of the Schoolyard Bully!

[geekwench]

Gee, I wonder if a kid that I went to school with in 5th grade is now employed by DirecTV?

He had a great "business model": he would approach another kid, invariably one who was smaller than him, and say "I heard you were talking about me behind my back. So, you're gonna bring me a dollar tomorrow, or I'm gonna beat you up and take your lunch money every day for a whole week." After the first demonstration of his willingness to enforce the demand, the threatened kids paid up.

This seems to me to be nothing more than a refinement of the same tactic: pay up, or We the Corporation will proceeed to make your life an absolute hell. Most people will cough up the cash, because no matter how good their lawyer migh be, the corporation has deeper pockets and near-infinate patience. Just like Mr. Sosa in the article, people have wives, kids, careers, and mortgages that they do not want to see threatened by a huge legal judgement, lawyer's fees, and the stigma of defending one's self against the accusation of an illegal activity. Compared to everything that a potential defendant has to lose, $3500 usually looks like a bargain. The lawsuits are unethical as can be, because DirecTV clearly does not give a tinker's damn about the guilt or innocence of the accused parties.

Sadly, this pattern of abuse will continue until DirecTV meets up with a proverbial Mouse that Roared. Just like the schoolyard bully. What happened to him, you ask? Let's just say that he never expected to get his lights punched out by a geeky girl.

*buffs nails on shirt and walks away whistling*

Whatever you beam into my house and body is MINE

[capedgirardeau]

The whole premise is wrong in my opinion, I think I should be able to do what I want with things people give to me or leave on my property.

If you are beaming your signals into my property, my house, my body, my kids, etc, I will damn well do what I please with them!

I almost have a duty to intercept them and decode them and make sure they are not harmful in anyway.

If they arrived unsolicited in the physical mail they would be mine to keep by federal law no questions asked.

You don't want me to do anything with them?? Then keep them off my land and out of my body, problem solved.

These are physical radio waves, you are dumping them on my property and I can't do what I want with them?

I dont think so....

News Item - Feds Sue all US registered Car Owners

[almondjoy]

To help balance the federal budget deficit and preemptively reduce highway accident rates, the Federal government today announced that all registered car owners will be sued in federal court today. The lawsuit requires all defendants to comply by immediately bringing their registered vehicles to a government run repair center and have a speed governor installed. Specifically, this lawsuit applies to all vehicles that have a speedometer designed to indicate speeds higher than the maximum allowed by law.

Ashcroft... "Of course someone who buys a car equipped with a speedometer that indicates speed ranges higher than the legal limits clearly intends to break those limits."

President Bush commented... "Well, if you break the law then you should be punished. I have never gotten a speeding ticket, and if I did then it would definitely be based on faulty intelligence - and I'm definitely aware of anything faulty at this point. In fact, if you're speeding, then you're - you're probably a terrorist. Its a good law."

These types of cases are abusive to legal system

[kobotronic]

I'd be shit-pissed if I pulled jury duty and had to sit in on a case like this. I expect the DirectTV thugs probably expect most of their victims to just pay up and settle out of court, but if there's just hundreds of these cases that end up in court, I'd say that's an awful waste of legal resources. A pox on their corporate asses...

Quick patent it!

[StringBlade]

If you patent the term "lawsuit spam" and it's process then you can sue DirectTV, the RIAA, and any other corporation for illegally using your patented process of generating income.

1. Patent "lawsuit spam"
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:Quick patent it!

[jonfelder]

Unfortunately there's way too much prior art...even too much for the Patent Office to ignore.

Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from

[MemeRot]

"Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not."

I would :)

It really doesn't matter how it was advertised though, now does it? Macrovision defeating signal cleaners are advertised as white-bread - and they're not. Glass bongs are advertised as 'for tobacco use only' - and they're not. No matter what else, these devices have substantial legitimate uses, and as the article pointed out the company is making NO effort to do any preliminary research - to the point of suing people who don't even HAVE a directTV of stealing directTV scrambled content. I'm sorry, but that's an asshat move, and a huge waste of taxpayer resources - you do realize that no matter how great this might be for direcTV they're getting money and the taxpayer is paying for all of the court time even in utterly frivolous cases like that one.

Minority Report may not be far off...

[StringBlade]

dammit! now I have to stop planning my murders.

Re:Minority Report may not be far off...

[Dumbush]

Minority Report might not be far off...

But the scary part is we do not have the technology to identify anyone worth a damn... But what the hell, let's screw over a bunch of random people, one of them must has the ability to commit crime, right?

Re:Minority Report may not be far off...

[jonfelder]

Ah, but the difference is that planning a murder at least implies intent to commit a crime. The problem here is that people just happen to fit a certain set of criteria.

Oh you have a smartcard reader you must be a criminal. Whether or not the person ever intended to pirate directTV isn't even a consideration here.

Re:Minority Report may not be far off...

[cioxx]

Minority Report might not be far off...
But the scary part is we do not have the technology to identify anyone worth a damn

Haven't you heard? Hilary Rosen is a pre-cog. She is submerged into the water and drops names of people who might think of downloading stuff off the net.

Why do you think she's stepping down as the CEO at the end of the year?

So am I hosed?

[OS24Ever]

Fusion credit card sent me a handy dandy smart card reader to use my Visa with (I never did) but my Visa is one of those that has a chip in it.

Dear Direct TV

[theblacksun]

I am so glad you finally found a way to profit from shoddy engineering. What a great business strategy! I mean, I suppose you could have come up with a better way of doing the tv subscriptions this but why bother when you can just sue people for the hell of it? I love this country and its wonderful civil legal system, but not as much as you do I'm sure. Oh yes and by the way, next time please use lube; it hurts a lot less and you still get to feel like a big man.

The American Public

I'll be waiting on my letter...

[sharky611aol.com]

...from Microsoft. It's only a matter of time til they go after folks who bought XBox mod chips, assuming DirectTV doesn't get a massive counter-suit. On a side note, this article just spurred me to become a member of the EFF. Way to go DirectTV!

They wanna fight dirty, do they?

[ca1v1n]

I'm not an expert on such matters, but this might be grounds to get their corporate council disbarred. I know that lawyers generally avoid this as a matter of professional courtesy, but what they're doing here may be an ethics violation.

Hmmm...

[sleepingsquirrel]

He's a rich doctor who apparently can't afford to take the time to fight for $3500. And the reason he got in trouble is that he wasn't willing to pay $30 a month for TV. I'll bet he only sends the servents out to the grocery store on double-coupon days.

They have to serve you. Throw away any letter.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not sued until a Federal Marshal or Sherrif's Deputy comes and physically hands you notice. Don't evade them when you see them coming, however you can't be sued by letter. (This doesn't apply to non-individuals, such as companies and LLC's; it also may not apply if you have a lawyer you have retained, and they deliver the letter to the lawyer.)

It costs from $80 to $300 to serve process. I doubt they intend to do it for all these people.

Security through legal action?

[zapp]

It seems to me that rather than create a secure system for holding this crucial data, they went first for security via obscurity ("who would ever figure out to just read the smartcard??") to security via legal action ("They own a smartcard reader? sue the fuckers.")

Isn't this the same company that decided to sue someone for all "possible" damages (damages that would have occured if they had sold all their units)?

Re:Security through legal action?

[JDBrechtel]

The weird thing is that based on what is known about the cards....DTV *CAN* secure their system to a much greater extent than it is now. It's a known fact that they can permanently disable all cloned cards (I.E. any card that is in a receiver but not legally subscribed) in one fell swoop.

They don't though....makes you wonder.......

The main theory is that they WANT piracy to proliferate because it increases their installation base (kinda like Windows piracy...) so whenever they do tighten their security...everyone will already be locked in to them...or at least be more inclined to sub to DTV than a competitor.

Re:Boycott DirectTV and any Rupert Murdoch Busines

[chrismg2003]

Slashdot has a signficant amount of technological saavy users. May I suggest those users boycot this company, I am willing to bet it will hurt them (the company) to some degree.

In Soviet Russia.. oh forget it....

[u-235-sentinel]

"Stretch or not, Mercer admits that DirecTV has dismissed some cases after the defendant proved his or her innocence to the company's satisfaction."

Makes me feel good knowing that the USA has "innocent until proven guilty" as a legal motto. At least the last time I checked the laws you were innocent. Now all you have to do is purhcase equipment to create your own smart cards and you're a crook. Never mind that you are NOT a DirectTV customer.

Remember way back when Windows 3.1 was God (Microsoft likes you to believe it at least). Ever install the mouse drivers for 3.1? I found it amusing that you had restrictions on the use of the driver... like making a copy of it. What good is the software without a Microsoft mouse?

Sometimes it's makes me wonder.

Wow this is horrible.

[steppin_razor_LA]

I've been a happy paying customer (quite a bit - I subscribe to just about everything) of DirecTV for quite a few years.

Unfortunately, they have me locked in. I love my DirecTivo -- and while I find these sort of tactics very offensive -- I'm not willing to cancel my service over it. That said, I can only hope that others are less attached to their DirecTV set up and move to the competition.

This is everything thats wrong with America.

[syzme]

Holy shit this is horrible. This is the result when you have huge corporations that can "legitimately" manipulate a legal system. First, push the DMCA through congress because it just sounds so unobjectionable, then, once the whole deal is legal, you can screw the end user. These are folks who pay up because they can't afford a lawyer, or who have been succesfully frightened by the sytem. All this was done simply to increase corporate profits in an time when their profits WERE ALREADY UP!

Honestly, its shit like this that makes me want to just move to some little expatriate colony in the middle of nowhere, and sit back while America fucks itself.

Re:I feel ripped off

[chiph]

For the first few thousand customers. Now you have to pay for it.

Chip H.

You Jackasses

[ad0le]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that anyone who purchased a "smart card" writer from a source that specifically deals with information/tools for hacking DirectTv systems had the full intention of piracy.

Anyone that had a legitiment use for one would have gotten a better/cheaper product from a more reputable source.

I doubt DirectTv is going after companies like Dell,TigerDirect, etc etc that sell these things.

Re:You Jackasses

[JDBrechtel]

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.

Let's email them

[HolyN00b!]

si@directv.com is the email address they have posted for reporting people with readers/writers or who are pirating tv. anyone care to send them an email? or, say, several million?

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[DJCouchyCouch]

Yes, but you bought their reciever.

DCJJ

Re:Eyeing my Detonator ][ programmer...

[LWATCDR]

Tell you what to show how much you do not like the US why don't you stop using all services from US companies? Like.... Slashdot. Please do that the help the Great AMerican Empire impode as soon as possible. Pretty Please...

anyone want to buy one?

[binaryfeed]

Here you go!

Who said they were guilty?

[Synn]

Just because someone is being sued doesn't make them guilty of anything. In fact, judges in quite a few of the cases for this threw out the suit because of lack of evidence.

The problem is that a lot of people are so afraid of going to court that they cave in to these sorts of legal letters.

Re:Good news

[shaldannon]

I can't make up my mind if you're serious or a troll. While your points about theft are certainly true, your sodomist comments smack of trollry. Indeed, I wonder how anyone can have "principles" who is so excited over the thought of people being locked up in jail and sodomized.

If you want to be taken seriously, keep the post logical, PLEASE.

I got one!!!

[JohnnyGTO]

COME AND GET IT, if your man enough!

It is simply amazing what you can buy at rumage sales, specially computer rumage sales!

Heh, old news ... to me anyways.

[sparkie]

I have the unfortunate distinction of being one of these people that is being sued for purchasing an ISO compliant smart card reader/writer. I'd be more than happy to share any information I have with anyone else being sued, as well as accept any information from anyone else being sued.

There's a flaw in your analogy, too.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.)

There's a flaw in your analogy, too. Cocaine is also used in eye surgery, and is the medically best choice of a range of drugs for several other treatments.

Re:There's a flaw in your analogy, too.

[Dachannien]

Fortunately for me, I didn't actually make an analogy, so there couldn't possibly be a flaw in it. However, I was highly entertained by the dozen people after you who felt it necessary to tell me that I'm wrong :)

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[heli0]

"I just think it's irony that they're suing people for buying into their #1 sales hook."

How is this their sales hook? Sounds like it is only your "roomates cousin's" illegal sales hook.

Also please clear up:
" our roomate bought a dish networks dish "
"we get the same system."
"Every channel on direct TV "
" Dish networks sent out a signal"

Which one did you have?

video tape?

[siskbc]

Assuming you can do a UPS COD pickup without showing ID (i've never tried), the only think you have to fear is the security video tape at the UPS office.

Yeah, and I'm guessing they don't keep that stuff forever, eh? Looks like you're in the clear.

Ya know, it would have been more fun to use some asshat for a mail drop and get his ass in trouble, but I guess no one saw this sort of fun coming.

The solution is simple

[Funksaw]

If you do not appreciate the way a company does business, do not do business with that company.

I'm not buying Direct TV. I don't even know if I'm going to be buying cable in my new apartment (AOL/TimeWarner) Cable modem, I'll probably go with the local cable, not the Time Warner broadband.

I'm not going to give money to companies that treat me like a criminal.

-- Funksaw

Basic Evolution

[danZenie]

can someone please confirm if DirectTV and the RIAA share a common ancestor. maybe there is fossil record some where.

speudo code:
10 DirectTV="GreedMutationGene"
20 RIAA="GreedMutationGene"
30 while DirectTV=RIAA
40 print "you greedy sons of bastards"
50 wend
60 end

damn it, i just realized that this is and endless loop.

You'll be seeing it soon

[paroneayea]

Remember those old "Traffic Counters" that at one time even some companies had on their websites? If you haven't noticed, those have become less and less popular lately. But a new trend is going to start showing up on the 'Net... the Lawsuit Counter! It looks kind of like this:

You are our
|359,385|th
lawsuit victim
since 07/17/03

Re:I'm sorry...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused here. If you get a letter, ignore it. If you get served with a statement of claim then get some law student to write up a statement of defence denying everything. Wait for a trial date if it ever comes and make them PROVE you have injured them somehow.

That's the law as I remember it in law school.

It's a civil trial

[rk]

And therefore it's not an issue of guilt versus innocence. DTV only needs to have a "preponderance of evidence" to win, and they have the right to call you as a witness.

So, yes, you must effectively prove your innocence in civil court.

Re:I'm sorry...

[heli0]

One man has won his court case in Michigan ""

END USER VICTORY in MICHIGAN
UPDATE

DirecTV v. Eugene Karpinsky, Case No: 02-CV-73929, United States District
Court in the Eastern District of Michigan. The Court issued an Order
granting Summary Judgment as to all counts of DirecTV's case against Eugene
Karpinsky. The Court affirmed that contrary to DirecTV's argument, mere
possession of two smartcard recovery systems (unloopers) is insufficient to
support a finding of liability under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 605(a), 18 U.S.C. Sec
2511(1)(a), or 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2512(1)(B)or demonstrate a claim of
conversion.

U.S. District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 02-CV-73929

DIRECTV Inc v. Karpinsky

Filed: 10/01/02
Assigned to: Judge George Caram Steeh

I wonder if there is a gotcha

[gadgetman]

If anyone from DirecTV bought one of these to study it or to surreptitiously have dealings with the purveyors of these programmer/readers, then IMO they would be a target of the suit as well. Since it doesn't matter why one purchased the programmer/reader, but that they did puchase it. According to their reasoning, it doesn't matter what you intended to do with the programmer/reader, you have no reason to have one other than to steal DirecTV programming. It wouldn't matter that they were doing their own investigating of the black market programmer/readers, they are liable of their own suit. If they are not liable because of their reasoning...then isn't everyone else that purchase one?

I used to have a really good sig...

They aren't

[Synn]

Anyone remember that petsmart.com site, where the owner of the online store was suing everyone and anyone who posted bad remarks about his business?

He represented himself in court, which is what made it affordable for him to sue so many people.

These are not all normal programmers

[rnelsonee]

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.

Re:These are not all normal programmers

[Ath]

That is a load of crap. It is an absolute lie that simply owning a smart card progammer (despite any additional functionality as an unlooper) is a crime. Nor is buying one.

If you would bother doing a SIMPLE search, you will find plenty of legal judgments (you know, those things from JUDGES) that buying or owning a "black box" or a smart card programming device of ANY kind is not per se a crime. It can only be used as additional circumstantial evidence that someone was committing the actual crime of signal theft or could be civilly liable against the company.

So don't make crap up or say things you do not know about. People are getting sued for real about this and it is important that at least some of them establish legal records showing DTV can be stopped. Making such a statement makes some people believe they cannot possibly win because through actual purchase they have already sealed their fate.

Re:I'm sorry...

[SiliconEntity]

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.

You're anonymous (more or less), your lawyer friend is anonymous, and his clients are anonymous. So you're not giving anything away if you answer this. How many of these clients are actually guilty versus clients who bought these programmers for legitimate purposes?

My guess is they're virtually all guilty. All this talk about barratry and misuse of the legal system doesn't make sense if DirecTV actually has a legal case against almost everyone they are suing.

The real problem is widespread violation of the law, not DirecTV's attempts to get it stopped.

Rule 11

[angio]

They shouldn't have sued for extortion. In the case of the guy who didn't own a TV, he should have informed DirectTV that he wasn't using it to pirate software, etc., and then if DirectTV had filed suit against them, should have filed a Rule 11 filing against DirectTV's attorney for failing to do due dilligence before filing the lawsuit:

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+...

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[Kamel Jockey]

Insightful????

If you are beaming your signals into my property, my house, my body, my kids, etc, I will damn well do what I please with them!

Lets say I pull over next to your house and park in a public street. I fire up my laptop and pick up your open wireless access point and I use your Internet connection because the signals from your access point bleed into my car (and maybe I will even do mean nasty things with your connection as well). Is this OK too? Sure you may not pay extra for me to leech your service, but is it right for me to even be on your private network at all?

I almost have a duty to intercept them and decode them and make sure they are not harmful in anyway.

What if you had used WEP and I cracked it and got onto your network, would this still be OK in your book? Say I rigged my cordless phone to use the base station in your house because the signals from your base station can reach into my car. Would it be OK for me to use your phone service simply because those signals pass into my car?

You can't fight if you can't afford to lose.

[geekotourist]

Given this fee structure, could most actually innocent people fight this when DirectTV is wrong? No. You'll fight a traffic ticket because you can afford to take a day off and/or afford to lose. But what if the original ticket fine was $1,000 (but they kindly reduce it to $200 if you act now) and if you lost you lose 5 days in court, 5 days of your car, and $5,000? Unless you are rich, no matter how innocent you are you cannot risk losing.

Their behavior is similar to the BSA's (Business Software Alliance not Boy Scouts). Threaten with a big number, entice to immediate settlement with a smaller number, and always have the threat in the background of being able to ruin the person's business. With the BSA their "we can ruin you" threat is the full business audit: they can take your computer equipment- all of your computers- down for days or weeks. No business can afford that, so you'll 'voluntarily' take the 'negotiated' settlement. With DirectTV their "ruin you" threat is the big lawsuit: you'd be spending $10k+ in lawyers, you'll lose weeks of time, you'll lose a month off of your future life because of the stress, and if you lose you'll have to pay for their 20 $300/hr lawyers.

"Vacumn" opinion.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The whole premise is wrong in my opinion, I think I should be able to do what I want with things people give to me or leave on my property.
"

Hello Mr Poster. This is the citizens that live around you. Since some thoughtless person left all this air on our property. We have decided to hoard it and let none escape. We realize this will mean that you will have nothing to breath, but we are self-centered bastards and don't really care, but in the interest of our public image we are sending you this letter. Have a nice day.

Damn! If they'd done this a month ago ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If they'd done this a month ago I'd have ordered Dish network instead. B-(

Looks like I'll be switching once my "committment" runs out.

The place to fight this is on two fronts:

- The courts. Because if they win even once they'll be back for more. "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute." Because:

That is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

- The checkbook. So it costs them more in lost subscriptions than it gains them in settlements and "reduced piracy".

no-call-list parents reactions vs hacker reaction

[pioneer]

i just put DirecTV on my do-not-call list...

parents: oh dear. i hope we don't have one of those.

(cr|h)acker: let's DoS them to hell, that'll teach 'em.

slashdot: if you were using linux this wouldn't happen...

9000 lawsuits... jeez. imagine if everyone just stalled them. do they have enough lawyers to handle 9000 lawsuits that get drawn out?

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[t0qer]

Also please clear up:

I know this is slash, but I spend a good 15-20 minutes writing a good detailed post based on RL with a few errors and you gotta be nitpicky? Save your bitching for when michael screws up on his spelling.

A few facts from the article

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

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.

Re:A few facts from the article

[LostCluster]

Which is why it seems like the system is working here. Those who did use the devise illegally can't hide, those who were wrongly caught on the list simply need to bring some proof of their legit use to court to win. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here, this isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case...

Re:A few facts from the article

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

... the people who "successfully" fought this still had to pay their own legal fees.

As I read it, those were in dismissal cases (as opposed to the summary judgement against DirecTV mentioned at the end of the article). Can the victims here bring a countersuit to recover their losses? If not, I guess this is the problem with a legal system that doesn't default to awarding all costs to the unsuccessful party unless the court finds there's a good reason not to.

Re:A few facts from the article

[Datafage]

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.

Re:A few facts from the article

[k12linux]

Which is why it seems like the system is working here. Those who did use the devise illegally can't hide, those who were wrongly caught on the list simply need to bring some proof of their legit use to court to win.

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.

Re:A few facts from the article

[Creep73]

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.

Re:A few facts from the article

[rking]

So, you feel the system is working if any company can bring suit against everyone who could have gotten free service?

The fact that they can bring suit against anyone is very much a good thing.

The expense of the system may be bad, the awarding of costs or damages by the courts may be wrong, or the process may take too long or be too technical, but the principal that if you have a complaint against someone that you can bring it before an impartial judge has to be right.

Once it gets to the judge, sure he should be able to tell you to go away and stop wasting everyone's time, and ideally order you to compensate the defendant for the bother if appropriate but you must have a right to bring the case to that point. If you can't then who decides which cases merit being heard?

Re:A few facts from the article

[sjames]

The fact that they can bring suit against anyone is very much a good thing.

In principle, it is, but the way it is currently used is not. A great many suits these days are nothing but shakedowns thinly veiled as a legitimate grievance. Calculating the cost of defending against a baseless or very weak suit and asking for 10% less as a settlement has been raised to an artform.

I claim that you wore a BLUE clown nose on August 12th 1995 and that has caused me great mental anguish. I demand $100 for my pain. Pay up or the lost work and legal fees will easily cost you $1000.

Feel extorted? You should. Or perhaps mugged. The thing is, I know very well that it's probably worth $100 to you to make me go away. We need a pre-trial procedure to filter out this sort of crap before the defendant even hears about it.

As for DirecTV, I suppose next they'll sue everyone who has programmable hardware that can program a flash chip (hint, any PC sold in the last 15-20 years can).

The least they could do is confine their suits to people who bought a programmer, own a dish, and don't subscribe to any satelite service.

I have had a DirecTV account for many years now, have always enjoyed it, and have little or no sympathy for people who pirate the service. I may need to reconsider now (damnit) I find this morally reprehensible.

Re:A few facts from the article

[RTPMatt]

Incidentally, for anyone else who didn't RTFA, there are also mentions of several innocent users who have successfully fought this

I see so now we are working on the guilty till proven innocent system? Am i not in america? this is wrong no matter how you look at it. i cant believe they are able to get away with this

Re:A few facts from the article

[martyros]

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here, this isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case...

Huh? So the fact that you're merely going to have to sell your house and your car and declare bankruptcy to pay off the $100,000 in "damages", or waste a lot of your free time and money, maybe get a second mortgage on your home to pay the attourney, instead of going to jail, means that a fundamental human right doesn't apply?

I was just thinking that lawsuits like these would be much better if you could make the "right to an attourney" plea to get a court-appointed attourney. That way, in situations where there's no possible evidence, but the cost of settling ($3500) is a whole lot less than the cost of a lawyer (anyone have some figures?), the little guy at least has a chance...

Re:A few facts from the article

[LostCluster]

You're free to sue anybody for anything, welcome to the United States of America. Oh, no promise you'll win, but you're welcome to try.

If this lawsuit truely is baseless, then the defendants should have no problem showing that they have a non-DirecTV-stealing use for Smartcard equipment, and that this whole thing is a joke. If they do that sucessfully, then DirecTV will be paying them for their trouble. The problem you're going to find here is that most of the defendants are going to not be able to meet that standard, in part because they did exactly what theyr'e being accussed of.

Re:A few facts from the article

[parliboy]

I had a relative who was killed by a handgun. I am allowed by law to bring a civil case against the killer of the relative. Can I get a list of everyone who owns the handgun and then threaten them all with a suit? After all, the person who pulled the trigger can't hide (because, like the dish equipment, the gun would NEVER be bought on the black market), and everyone else just needs to show legit use of their gun to win.

Hey, it isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case...

Re:A few facts from the article

[LostCluster]

Yep, if you're willing to face the abuse of process charges for the cases you lose, there's really nothing stopping you.

Re:A few facts from the article

[Dun Malg]

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here, this isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case...

Incorrect. "Innocent until proven guilty" does/b> apply to civil court. The difference is that in a civil cases are decided on the preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to a criminal case, which requires guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re:A few facts from the article

[C0LDFusion]

The question isn't whether it's wrong to sue ANYONE you have a grievance with, the question is if it's right to sue EVERYONE who you only POSSIBLY have a grievance with.

It's like the difference between suing a neighbor who shoots your dog, and suing a neighbor who owns a gun which might result in him someday shooting your dog.

Re:A few facts from the article

[znode]

Why don't you RTFComments and get it through your head that there are plenty of legitimate uses for SmartCard devices?

Do you buy goods from stores that tell you what they're selling you is illegal to possess because its only useful purpose is illegal?

Yeah, even though that turned out to be untrue statement...

And thus you are using it in your argument why?

(which you somehow are assuming all of them intended to use legally in some non-DirecTV use or not use at all...)

No one said all of them used it in a legal manner. It seemed to me that they said it is outrageous for those who did use them for legitimate purposes to have several grand, or more if they try to resist, ripped out from them for absolutely no reason.

Re:A few facts from the article

[k12linux]

It's like the difference between suing a neighbor who shoots your dog, and suing a neighbor who owns a gun which might result in him someday shooting your dog.

Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be suing everyone in your neighborhood who owns a gun because they may have shot your dog.

Re:A few facts from the article

[PeterPanic]

Man, that's straight from the middle ages! There you got to prove your innocence in the presence of big hairy guys with glowing pliers. That is the reason why the current legal system is based on "innocent until proven guilty". If DirecTV thinks your stealing, they should do the effort of proving it. Or at least showing that it is very likely and only then filing charges. And if they can't prove it, they should be stuck with all legal fees, because they caused them.

Re:A few facts from the article

[digitalunity]

No, a closer analogy would be:
My dog is dead.
You own a gun.
Therefore, you shot my dog.

Re:A few facts from the article

[Lectrik]

So if i had my lawyer friend defend me and agree to pay her TWO MILLION DOLLARS!(tm) [insert evil laugh] for the case and we win and are awarded legal fees, would DTV have to pay us TWO MILLION DOLLARS!(tm) that we could split?

And if we weren't awarded legal fees, she would settle for a bit of TWO MILLION DOLLAR!(tm) nookie.

nudge, nudge
wink, wink
say no more

Re:A few facts from the article

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I realise that your reply is tongue-in-cheek, but to address the serious point within it...

So if i had my lawyer friend defend me and agree to pay her TWO MILLION DOLLARS!(tm) [insert evil laugh] for the case and we win and are awarded legal fees, would DTV have to pay us TWO MILLION DOLLARS!(tm) that we could split?

No, probably not. The court would award costs of $x, where they deemed $x to be a reasonable figure for the work done by your legal representative(s) -- which may or may not match exactly what you paid them.

This arrangement is similar to how cases in the UK work, and whaddya know, we don't have anything like the same problem as the US currently does with big corps intimidating results out of people without any basis. I think this is one of the really clear cases where our legal system is better than theirs at present.

Re:A few facts from the article

[SillySlashdotName]

The question isn't whether it's wrong to sue ANYONE you have a grievance with, the question is if it's right to sue EVERYONE who you only POSSIBLY have a grievance with.

+1,Insightful (sorry, I don't currently have mod points...)

Re:A few facts from the article

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

That's true - people do; but people with guns kill more people than people without guns. Also, people with guns have an easier time killing people without guns. It is very rare for a person without a gun to kill a person with a gun. Although, if two people with guns show up in the same place - it is more likely that one of those persons will kill the other one than if two people without guns show up in the same place. Also of interest is the fact that by percentages, people with bullets and guns kill more people than people with guns but without bullets. This is obviously quite an issue and one should carefully analyze it! :D

Justice and The Law

[No Such Agency]

Courts are not a simple little thing that you can manipulate just because you are right.

Best summary of the law I've ever read :-)

If you go in front of a judge, you better be absolutely prepared...

I'm not saying I personally would have a hope in hell of winning against DirecTV's no doubt extensive and amoral team of legal barracudas. I just like to think that if I'd really done nothing wrong, that I wouldn't just roll over and send them the $3500 (not that I have that kind of money to send anyway). Wishful thinking perhaps, as I've never had to face down a threatening letter from a corporate law firm.

Legal?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

So the Feds break down the doors and do a raid and then give the info to a private organisation ?

Geez I wish I lived in a free country like the USA!

Any smart card reader?

[Fizzlewhiff]

What if you are using the smartcard reader to read your American Express Blue card? Is DirecTV going to sue you?

You can, it's just not a good idea

[KalvinB]

You don't have to have a lawyer. If you think you know the law as well as or better than a lawyer, you can opt to represent yourself.

"Why person can't simply go to computer and state what he/she wants application to do."

I don't hire a programmer everytime I want to do something with my computer. I've learned to be a capable programmer myself.

Another good reason to get a lawyer and not represent yourself is that's not just about knowing the law. You also have to be able to present yourself. It's very difficult for a client to remove themselves from their emotions which will hurt them. Lawyers on the other hand have no emotions.

Ben

Re:You can, it's just not a good idea

[guacamolefoo]

I don't hire a programmer everytime I want to do something with my computer. I've learned to be a capable programmer myself.

Would you hire a programmer if, the first time you ran the program it had to work 100% correctly with no bugs, and you did not get more than one chance to run the program (including testing)? You don't get test drives or re-dos in court.

Another good reason to get a lawyer and not represent yourself is that's not just about knowing the law. You also have to be able to present yourself.

Very true. Part of litigation is not just knowing the rules but how to effectively present an argument within the highly formal framework of rules. There are many excellent lawyers who are horrible in the courtroom. I watched many of them while clerking for a judge.

It's very difficult for a client to remove themselves from their emotions which will hurt them. Lawyers on the other hand have no emotions.

True on point one. Point two, I take it, is a funny. Nevertheless, attorneys care about their cases, just in a different way. If a client loses a custody battle, I haven't lost my kid. On the other hand I can't stand losing.

GF.

Mod parent up

[Kevin DeGraaf]

If you are beaming your signals into my property [...] I will damn well do what I please with them!

If only I had mod points now... the poster is absolutely correct. Any company stupid enough to deliver a set of data to someone's property and then rely on client-side programming to select a billable subset of this data to present to the subscriber (think satellite TV, cable modem service via TFTP'd DOCSIS config files, etc.) deserves whatever happens to their signal.

The fact that the tools overtly intended to circumvent satellite TV receiver limitations are illegal is appalling enough. That DirecTV is pulling this sue-everyone-regardless-of-intent horseshit is so much worse, so incredibly "over the top", I can hardly string coherent words together to describe my rage!

Fuck you, DirecTV!

Re:Damn! If they'd done this a month ago ...

[reiggin]

Well, I'm glad I just got Dish Network today. It's sweet. I wanted the DirecTV because they use TiVo for their PVR but I settled for DishPVR instead. Not because of this mess though. But because DirecTV's sales department is full of complete and total wastes of flesh. After a month of being screwed over with, I called Dish and got a system in less than 3 days with absolutely no hassles and the kindest of service. Dish knows customers come first. DirecTV, may you burn in DMCA Hell.

Re:And you people stood by....

[MImeKillEr]

Off-topic.

No doubt, you saw this?

"A U.N. group is working toward establishment of an international system to register and regulate civilian possession of firearms, according to a former congressman....."

Re:BARRATRY and $30,450,000

[DrWho520]

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.

Legal Purposes for these smart card writers....

[Capt_Troy]

I'm just curious, what would be a legal use for a smart card writer? What devices other that DTV use the card? I'm not familiar with these smartcards (basic cable user) but i would imagine that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to purchase one.

Is the purchase of a writer illegal in and of itself regardless of the intentions of the buyer (seems to be what DTV is claiming)? It seems to me that they would have to prove that they are suffering damages though. So you could have DTV and be using your smart card writer to hack your cell phone or something. DTV can't claim a loss can they? IANAL...

Thanks!
troy

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[heli0]

DirecTV and Dish Network are two seperate corporations. DirecTV is initiating these lawsuits while Dish Network is not.

DirecTV has much stricter controls over who can sell and install their equipment so I initially assumed you were referring to Dish Network. I would be intrigued if this practice were occurring with DirecTV equipment.

The burden of proof is also lower.

[AzrealAO]

In a Criminal Case, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense, not an arbitrary or possible doubt. To convict a criminal defendant, a jury must be persuaded of his or her guilt to a level beyond "apparently" or "probably". Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest level of proof that law requires.

In a Civil Lawsuit on the other hand, the preponderance of evidence carries the day. It means that the greater weight and value of the credible evidence, taken as a whole. belongs to one side in a lawsuit rather to the other side. In other words, the party whose evidence is more convincing has a "preponderance of evidence" on its side and must, as a matter of law, prevail in the lawsuit because it has met its burden of proof.

Restraint of Trade

[cait56]

DirectTV does not have exclusive rights to deploy systems using SmartCards.

Therefore, others have the right to purchase equipment required to prototype SmartCard systems.

By seeking to brand anyone who uses such equipment as a pirate of DirectTV service, DirectTV is acting in restraint of trade in that it is hindering development of other uses of Smart Card technology. At least some of which might deploy products competitive with DirectTV or one of its parent companies.

Court costs

[hansroy]

Its interesting to see that in the Wilens class action suit, the judge is ordering the plaintiffs to pay DirectTV's lawyers' fees. I wonder, if any of the people who have received these letters from DirectTV were to go to court and win, would they also be awarded the same?

Doesn't anyone see the obvious....

[BCSEiny]

DTV needs to expand their production of smartcards to keep up with demand. They get money and recorders from the people the sue and then use the money to settle with the people who sue them back, they keep the readers. Sounds like a new business model to me. "We need more of X" "Ok sue people with X for much money." "Profit"

I *was* going to be a DTV customer ...

[Triumph The Insult C]

Until I read this. On the phone with Customer Service as I write this, cancelling my order. =)

Re:I *was* going to be a DTV customer ...

[Str8Dog]

I would be interested in a recording of that conversation... or at least a log of it.

Blank Amtel

[wakeboard]

Every company that sold these smartcard readers sold them with blank amtels. So when bought they are not capable of programing a card. They can not prove that you intended to steal tv becouse the unit you bought can not program card or CAMs (Conditional Access Modules). Now if you modified it with code to allow you to hack into a CAM then it is against the law. Buying a loader is not a crime and these letters and law suits are mainly a scare tactic. freedomfight.ca satlaw.org

Re:What about home security cameras?

[EvanED]

With the correction you noted, this is correct.

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[swb]

I don't think this apparently contradictory two-tier sales technique is all that uncommon. Tier I, the main company, wants big bucks for their product, and the marginal utility is far greater for the deluxe version which is quite expensive.

However, the utility of the basic version is much lower but the marginal cost compared to a competitor's product is quite high.

The Tier II sales people get you to buy the basic product with the promise that for a few extra dollars you will be able to cheat and enjoy the increased marginal utility of the deluxe product without having to actually pay for it.

The reality is that the "cheats" are long-term ineffective, eliminating most of the gain but without erasing the otherwise high costs of purchase and service for the basic product.

It's possible for Tier I to quietly tolerate this as it leads to higher sales of the high-margin equipment and the basic fee rates. Tier II doesn't care because they make their money and then some selling the initial product and the cheats.

The only person who loses is the mark who bought the sales pitch in the first place.

Let DirecTV know how you feel

[YetAnotherName]

DirecTV Feedback Page

Re:Let DirecTV know how you feel

[IamGarageGuy 2]

Reply sent to feedback page:

I will never subscribe to your service.

The reason is your abuse of the American
Legal system to sue people for their
purchase of smart card programmers.

This is a blatent "guilty until proven innocent" tactic based upon who can hire
the most lawyers.

I hope that you are counter-sued into oblivion by an individual who can afford
to take on the schoolyard bully.

Re:Let DirecTV know how you feel

[CrackHappy]

Here is my feedback submitted to their page:

I have been reading about DirecTV's legal actions against purchasers of smart card programming devices.

I am not a current DirecTV subscriber, and now that I am aware of the despicable tactics that this company is willing to take against people for no other reason than because they purchased a device which might be used to perform an illegal act.

This is the same as suing someone for wrongful death after purchasing a gun and having never even fired it!

The fact that a person wrongfully accused has the ability to refute your lawsuit and get it dismissed does not make up for the fact that they still have many thousands of dollars in legal fees they are left to pay, while having NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG.

I sincerely hope that one of the plaintiffs in these suits, or many of them, manage to get a judgement against DirecTV awarding them millions in damages. Maybe then you will get the picture.

Your company may have gotten my business at one time, as your service is highly rated, and I have heard good things about it. However, I cannot morally support a company like this.

Sincerely,

CrackHappy (real name actually submitted)

Ewww

[222]

This is one of the most disgusting, flagrant abuses of corporate control over the US government that i have ever seen. I had to read the article twice, just to verify that it wasnt satire or the like. When stories such as this, and the recent crackdown on Kazaa users, i really have to wonder how exactly money could take something beautifull and free and stain it like this.
Im not trying to troll here, but doesnt this seem a little odd that behavior like this has multiplied 50 fold since our ever so wonderfull president stepped into office? I want clinton back.

The burden of proof isn't on the defendant...

[AzrealAO]

Civil Lawsuits are governed by the concept of "preponderance of proof". Whichever side can produce more proof than the other than X occured or didn't occur, must win the lawsuit.

The burden of proof isn't on the defendant, the burden of proof is on both parties equally, who ever proves more, wins.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[Valar]

To everyone who actually responded to this (I guess that includes me now, too): YHBT. HAND.

Counter sue for preventative cancer costs...

[Quixadhal]

Since it seem that the United States Empire is moving more and more towards the concept of Guilty until proven innocent (or all the money is drained from you), perhaps the People should counter-sue DirecTV for all the future cancer cases that their satellite transmissions *MIGHT* be causing.

The neighbors on both sides of me have DirecTV dishes, and since they get good reception I know the waveforms must be penetrating my house, and thus myself and my family. If we magically develop cancer 20 years from now, who's to say it wasn't that particular does of radiation that caused it?

As long as the US still wants to pretend to be a democracy (rather than the commercial Oligarchy it really is), anything which enters my home belongs to me, and provided that my doing so doesn't infringe on other rights (making money is not a right!), I can use that signal however I choose. Heck, if I don't record it, I'm not even violating any copyright laws since I'm using the original signal, not a copy.

Alas, I don't have DirecTV... I am stuck with cable, so it's a moot point anyways. Maybe when they start suing everyone who bought a television, since they MIGHT be watching something that was once pirated from DirecTV....

Re:Counter sue for preventative cancer costs...

[forkboy]

Cancer is caused by ionizing and ultraviolet radiation. Basically, everything from the UV-spectrum on up. That's the energy required to break chemical bonds and form hydroxyl ions, free radiacals, and other good things known to induce cancerous cell formation. I promise you, their satellites are not emitting waves of this level of energy. Microwaves and radio waves can excite atoms, causing them to accelerate a bit (i.e. heat up) but they will not break even the weakest of chemical bonds that are present in the human body.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[Darth_Burrito]

... and pick up your open wireless access point... but is it right for me to even be on your private network at all?

Fine by me, that's why I left the WAP open.

What if you had used WEP and I cracked it and got onto your network

You can passively crack all the WEP signals you want. I don't care, but I would think that cracking the resource AND using it would be some kind of trespass since there was no implied consent. A similar logic would apply to a cordless phone base station.

Please excuse me while I step back into my faraday cage.

Contact information, lifted from that letter

[AEton]

DIRECTV, Inc.
End User Development Group
Office Hours: 6:30 am to 6:00 pm, Pacific Standard time [9:30am-9pm EST]
310-964-5424

"Hello, this is [real name] from [home]. I am a DIRECTV customer. I noticed that you have filed some lawsuits against people who own smart card programmers. I own one of these because I am the CIO of [company], a fast-growth security company focused on finding alternatives to biometric identification, which we view as a horrific invasion of privacy. Are you going to sue me, and if so, should I cancel my DIRECTV service now?"

"Hello, this is [real name] from [home]. I am a DIRECTV customer. I saw on the news that you filed some lawsuits against people who own smart card readers. I also saw that these lawsuits were tossed out of court in California, and that one target has won his case so far in Michigan. I will not support a company that engages in barratry of this order; I'm switching to cable. So long, suckers."

"Hello, this is [real name] from [home]. I'm an English teacher, and I'd just like to let your lawyers know that you made a heinous grammatical error in your Draft Complaint for Compensatory, Statuatory, and Other Damages, and for Injunctive Relief which you sent out to people who bought smart card programmers. On page 4, clause 7, line 3, you write 'principle design and intent'. You of course meant to write 'princiPAL', p-a-l, rather than p-l-e -- I'll leave the dictionary work to your experienced lawyers. Also, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to smart card programming devices as 'Pirate Access Devices', as you do on page 3, clause 4, lines 2 through 3. This euphemism has already been reserved by portholes, which go in the sides of ships. Even in the colloquial sense (from Princeton WordNet pirate, verb, to illegally copy published material), I doubt that one can illegally copy satellite signals which are already being beamed into every head in the continental United States without our consent. Have a nice day, and good luck with those nasty pirates. Arr, matey."

Just suggestions, of course.

Re: The bastion of freedom and democracy

[rthille]

Revised list:
Law-makers

Shit!

[greymond]

With over zealous crackdowns on P2P, Smart Cards, and Various other Geek toys/software - How much longer before I have to leave the good ol USA before getting arrested for something job related?

Re:Shit!

[DigitalSorceress]

I dunno.

I suppose you can ask Dmitry

...and in other news

[smeenz]

And in other news, the RIAA today raided ISPs across the country, forcing them to hand over personal details of customers using broadband connections.

A spokesman for the RIAA told reporters that the only reason for anyone to need more than 56k dialup modem connections was for piracy.

The RIAA had previously attempted to shut down peer-to-peer filesharing by trying to identify the individuals sharing large amounts of files, but attempts were blocked by large ISPs such as Verizon, who claimed they were protecting the privacy of their customers by refusing to identify those who were using p2p software.

This new approach allowed the monolithic company to sue 'in bulk'.

"Obviously there will be some broadband users who get sued that have never shared any files in their life, but just because they didn't know they could doesn't mean we're not going to get money out of them!", said RIAA representative I P Nightly.

land of the free?

[pbjones]

Come to Australia, multi zone DVD players and free ownership of card programmers.

Not just websites advertising piracy devices

[Anonymous Coward]

DirecTV is even shutting down companies that are not adverstising these devices as piracy devices. The company I purchased a smart card programmer and emulator board from did not advertise in any way shape or form the theft of satellite television. They were shut down after DTV sent in FBI agents undercover to their brick and mortar location and asked them if they could reprogram a smart card for them. The clerk behind the counter said yes and BAMMO..I have recieved both letters and am awaiting a summons.

I have contacted two attorneys who both feel I have a strong case. In fact the emulator board is still sealed in its original plastic, never been opened. I have never stolen DTV or attempted too.
I have been lied to every step of the way by agents of their "End User Development Group" who repeatedly told me that just owning these devices was completely illegal and that federal judges had already ruled that mere possession was illegal. When I explained my legitimate use for these devices I was told that ignorance (i am not makeing this up) is not legal defense in the US. Anyone still feeling sympathetic towards DTV?

This just in...

[Znonymous Coward]

The RIAA, SCO, and Direct TV are suing everyone on the face of the Earth... And themselves... And trees... And space babies...

No one is safe.

More at 11.

Re:So...

[Lt Razak]

I think it's because he didn't want to promote a huge referrer list pointing from that device back to Slashdot.

Do they sue anyone with a card reader?

[zenyu]

I don't have a TV, never had DirectTV, what contract exactly would I violate for them to have standing to sue me because I purchased a the cheapest card reader I could find on google? I just don't get it. I'm not saying they should sue TV owners or or their customers either, but how can they do this without at least finding some evidence I'm up to no good?

If I got an extortion letter I'd be sure to take them to court, and call up everyone I know at BBC and the NYT, just so innocent people like the doctor would know to fight this kind of fraud even if you have a wife and kids. Or, if I lost at least more people would know to jury nullify all DirectTV cases in the future, even if the judge doesn't let them see any evidence of the defendant's innocence.

Without doing some investigation first how will they know they should avoid suing someone like me? It must be hard to say someone without a TV is stealing your cable service right? Don't they care because there hasn't been any press yet, are they just too hopped up on this "piracy" idea to see their folly. I can see how a failing business like the music distribution industry might decide to finish themselves off in a big legal barrage, but used to see DirectTV as selling a product people wanted at a resonable price. I might not personally enjoy television, but plenty do. Is satelite TV already a dying dinasaur of the digital age?

Not available in Canada

[socrates32]

DirecTV isn't available here in Canada... So anyone who did want to pay for it would still have to pirate.

Editorial comments by Taco are incorrect

[guacamolefoo]

1. Directv is not suing "anyone" who bought a smart card. DTV is suing people who bought them from companies that were raided and shut down by the feds because they were breaking the law. That's a big difference taco. The seller of the cards is essentially the distinguishing characteristic here.

Here's an analogy:

It is illegal to buy things that are sold as illegal drugs, even if they are not drugs. For instance, if I buy flour from a dealer thinking it is coke, I go to jail for trying to buy drugs.

Now. Let's say that I am in a swanky neighborhood and I need some flour for a tart. My next door neighbor is Pablo Escobar. I know he has flour, because I called him and asked. He sells it cheaply, too, even cheaper than my local grocer. So, I walk across the street and buy flour from Pablo (thinking that it is flour, and it is). Pablo put it in a plastic bag, because he always seems to have those.

I start to walk out of the house, and the cops raid the place. I get busted for trying to buy drugs. Now maybe I have a perfectly innocent reason for being where I am with what I have, but it sure looks bad, doesn't it? If I had been caught in the same circumstances and the occupant of the house was Ned Flanders and the cops were looking for a rapist, I wouldn't be in trouble, most likely. Is it wrong that this difference exists?

Our courts are not truth detectors. There is no magic crystal that glows in the presence of honesty. Past experience and facts are all that a court can rely upon to make judgment calls.

The facts here are that all of the dealers here were shut down for peddling illegal pirate TV devices. Their customer records were pulled and showed buyers and what the buyers bought. Maybe some of them are innocent, but most of them absolutely were trying to steal tv signals. They are now caught up in civil cases, where the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases and Directv has some pretty damning circumstantial evidence. It is (rightly) on the shoulders of the defendants to put up or shut up and pay up.

Mod me down if you want, but it won't change my mind that these people are, for the most part, thieves that are trying to justify their conduct after the fact.

GF.

Re:Editorial comments by Taco are incorrect

[Lershac]

"but it sure looks bad, doesn't it... ...Our courts are not truth detectors. There is no magic crystal that glows in the presence of honesty. Past experience and facts are all that a court can rely upon to make judgment calls."

In the absence of a preponderance of evidence, innocence is assumed in civil cases. Determination of the definition of preponderance is the sticking point here.

I would let DTV make their case, and then just demonstrate a google search in court to find a legit source for a smart card programmer. Then rest. The search refutes their evidence (It was the easiest way to get one) and then they have no proof of what you actually did with it.

Re:Editorial comments by Taco are incorrect

[guacamolefoo]

In the absence of a preponderance of evidence, innocence is assumed in civil cases. Determination of the definition of preponderance is the sticking point here.

Civil courts have nothing to do with "innocence". Nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Nothing.

I would let DTV make their case, and then just demonstrate a google search in court to find a legit source for a smart card programmer. Then rest. The search refutes their evidence (It was the easiest way to get one) and then they have no proof of what you actually did with it.

Objection your honor. Relevance. C'mon.

You suffer from the illusion of the ignorant about the courts: A judge will surely be patient and understanding, and if only he will be reasonable, you can straighten this whole mess out in five minutes. Well, you would be flayed alive by opposing counsel (most of the people pursuing these cases for DTV are meatheads, and they'd still kill you).

Slashbots are totally ignorant when it comes to the legal world. Would you try to perform brain surgery on your neighbor after reading a couple of books or watching it on tv? Are you fucking crazy?

Half the battle in using a lawyer is knowing when to use him and when not to. If you don't understand that, then you are bound for the Sodomite Pits of the Pro Se Idiots.

GF.

Re:Editorial comments by Taco are incorrect

[Galapas]

...Directv has some pretty damning circumstantial evidence. It is (rightly) on the shoulders of the defendants to put up or shut up and pay up.

Circumstantial evidence? From years watching Judge Wapner, I thought circumstantial was just that circumstantial and nothing you could really be convictid with. And isn't there somthing about innocent until proven guilty somewhere?

-G

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[t0qer]

Dude,

It doesn't matter which it is (dish networks for me) they both use these "cheats" as a sales hook.

Read rest of the article - Sosa joined a suit!

[GlenRaphael]

But Sosa just rolled over and paid out $3500. These people are a problem because they help a bad system to stay bad. It makes it terribly difficult for me to have sympathy for someone who has such a lack of conviction, such a failed sense of justice. They don't care. Should we?

Yeah, Sosa's initial impulse was to send the money in. His reasoning process on that was probably something like this:

(1) There's a time limit on this offer.
(2) I don't have the time and energy to deal with lawyers and do the research to handle this right now.
(3) The worst-case scenario if I pay is I'm out $3500, which I can't afford.
(4) The worst-case scenario if don't pay is that I'm out 100 grand or more plus a lot of time.

Initial result=>PAY.

But after he had the time to reflect more on the matter, Sosa decided to fight back. So far, he's participated in a class-action suit (and lost, meaning he's on the hook for at least another $10k) and has given public interviews resulting in the article just featured.

So, yeah, I think he's doing the right thing. He cares, and we should too.

Re:BARRATRY and $30,450,000

[Lt Razak]

There's something wrong with those numbers!!

2.4 million a year in revenues is only about 7,000 subscribers (at $29/month).

I am sure they have more subscribers than that. So the word "revenues" is probably more like net profit, or _somthing_.

This is insane

[mark-t]

Mere posession of a device that can be used to commit infringement is no more proof of intent to actually infringe than buying a car when one is of legal drinking age is indication of intent to drive while drunk.

Re:Striking back...

[Lershac]

Please, when you do this, plan ahead so the debris hits DTV HQ!

Take it from someone who knows

[n0cturnal79]

Yes, I have been served with papers, and trust me. . . this whole thing sucks.

I was served at work, where i am a unofficial IT guy, with my fellow co-workers looking on as if i were a dangerous criminal. (Embarassing does not even begin to explain the feeling.) My first reaction was, WTF is this? I have never been sued before, i have never been in any kind of trouble before, hell, i have not had a speeding ticket in over 10 years. . . . but low and behold, here was a document stating that i am being sued for $120,000 by a company that i have been a long standing customer with for many years. As i read on, i found out that it was for a Smart Card Programmer. Once again that WTF feeling came back. . . . I purchased this equipment over 2 years ago for a security project that never got off of the ground. A company that i worked for wanted a better way to keep control over who used the company network, i found some info on smart cards, did a search for "smart card programmer" and purchased the cheapest unit i could find. (about $160 if memory serves me correctly), Only to find out that it would not work for what i wanted to do. And now im being sued! And as i said earlier, i am a DTV customer, have been for 6 years. If i were going to hack TV cards, you would think that i would do mine first!

Just to make one thing clear, I am a poor guy, And as a poor guy, there are not many options for me to take. Anyway, i dont want to rant about this, however i believe that it is a great injustice. This is just extortion, plain and simple. I was told that i could settle for $4,500 before i went to court, or $10,000 after the court process had began. Alternatively, i could fight it, and the cheapest lawyer would be on the average of $15,000 by the time it is all over. Obviously, not a "poor boy" option. And since it is a civil case, i am not entitled to a court appointed lawyer. So the only option left for me is to fight it myself. Which, if any of you have ever looked into the paperwork involved in a Federal Civil Case, looks like i have just over a snowball's chance in hell.

So if i go to court and loose, by law, they can take what little i have, and then some. One option that they could take is garnishment, and being that this is a Lawsuit for damages, they could take a chunk of my pay check for the next 25 years! I only make $12 an hour now, and have a wife and 2 kids, so this is not a good thing for a person who is just barely making it. This Lawsuit is designed to crush people like me so that people who have the money to pay the ransom, will do so.

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[Hank Reardon]

Ok, you need to call the EFF right now and see if they can put you in touch with a lawyer who will do either pro bono work or possibly work on a contingency basis. IANAL, but I believe that the puntitive damage statutes for frivolous Federal law suits are gigantic. Since this clearly is a lawsuit without base, as you are currently their customer and have purchased the device, you could be in a position to get substantially more than that $12 per hour, and become a folk hero at the same time.

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!

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[Hank Reardon]

Sorry about the double post, but I didn't notice that you bought it in the course of work.

You might want to contact that old company, if they're still in business, and tell them what's going on. If they have legal council, and it's explained that this reader was bought during the course of a project from them, you might get some free legal advice or (unlikely) some representation.

I know that there are lawyers who read /. Where are you guys? You should be chomping at the bit to help this guy out!

To the poster: please keep us posted. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'd be willing to donate some money for a legal defense fund if you stipulated: (1) that any monies left over after defense were donated to the EFF or OSF; (2) a portion of any monies recovered in damages, if any, were likewise donated to the EFF or OSF; and (3) that you really stick it to the fuckers if you can.

Please, please, please! Keep us posted.

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[Retarded_Ninja]

There is a Free legal service that is representing many people from Missouri and Illinois where several thousand people have been served by DirectTV. I cant remember the name but I have seen tem mentioned on slashdot before. Maybe someone can remember who they are. it like freelegal......com, or something like that. They are representing all directTV victims. Im sure if you search the internet you may be able to find them. Hope this helps you out.

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[FFFish]

It sounds like it's time to leave the country.

Seriously. Your government has gone looney, and corporations are running amuck. It's simple not worth living there anymore.

When enough sensible people either (a) leave the country or (b) revolt, things will be forced to change.

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[n0cturnal79]

Thank you very much for responding to my post. This has been a pretty scary ordeal for me, and the caring that you have shown has greatly renewed my faith in "real" Karma. As far as DTV goes, id love nothing more than to take this all the way. I believe that what they are doing is wrong, and that they should be made to understand that these tactics are unethical and unprofessional. Furthermore, in a strangely positive aspect, by me not having much anyway, i have very little to loose. I have decieded that if any lawyer or orginization would like to take my case, I would never settle - NEVER - I believe that the U.S.A. should be free of tyrants. I personaly judge a tyrant by their actions, not by their leagal standings. And i would be willing to use whatever means i have to stop people like this from extorting anyone else, ever. This lawsuit has taken on a very life-changing experiance for me. It has let me see that: A) The U.S. Legal system is only fair if you have money to throw at it. B) People really are out to get you. C) You dont have to do anything wrong to loose everyting you have. D) There are great people that, you don't need to see or meet to know that they are great. Thank you, I will keep you posted as things happen.

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[n0cturnal79]

In a phrase: I completely agree. Yet, it is my home, and no matter how much i disagree with it, this is where i want to raise my children. I too have thought of moving to a country that has more sensible laws regarding such circumstances. However, my whole life is here. Family, Friends, and a entire country full of folks that i care about. I believe that my best course of action, with or without help, is to take these bastards on. Not just for me, but for others that have lived through the same hell. Thanks for the reply.

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[n0cturnal79]

Just an update, i have contacted someone at the EFF. They don't know if they can help yet, but it sounds promising. I realy appreciate all the help that slashdot readers have shown. Your efforts have positively affected at least one family in need, and for that, I thank you.

I will keep you guys posted as things happen.

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[FFFish]

IMO, it is far easier to leave the country than to change it. For one thing, I believe the government corruption is so pervasive that it will be impossible to change.

But, yes, the better course of action is to become active in demanding political and social change. There needs to be more accountability on *ALL* levels, from personal responsibility for being the sort of dumbass that has resulted in the bizarre warning labels we now see, to government accountability for the bijillions of dollars that are wasted and the asinine laws that are being passed.

Grrr. I think I will stop before I really start to rant...

Re:Take it from someone who knows

[grndzro]

Please email me at grndzroNOSPAM@newsguy.com (remove the NOSPAM)I am in a similar boat. I got interested in smart cards as a way to track a medical instrument's data we were developing. I've been a dtv customer for years and have bought their NFL package for the last two years. When I told them that they just said they weren't customer service and didn't care. I got laid off in June and didn't get my last months pay so there's no way I can come up with their 3500 bucks.

Don't you get it?

[waspleg]

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.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM PEOPLE

what happened to being innocent until proven guilty? they ASSUME you are guilty by default and it is even legally enforced at $10,000 as other people have mentioned herein..

this doesn't even adress the fact that they b roadcast their signal through the air and it costs them NOTHING AT ALL for your equipment to be picking up the signals

so not only are you guilty by default but you also have no rights as to what's in the air in your own fucking house

that judge should be disbarred this is gross negligence on the part of the legal system which is supposed to protect people's rights not inflated corporate profit margins (as i recall it says by the people for the people not by corporations for the almighty dollar)

yea it's a rant, yea i'm totally unaffected by this but shit like this makes me want to move to Soviet Fucking Russia where at least the criminals aren't trying to shove (their) morality down your throat while they're extorting you and threatening your family.

Sun Workstations

[nkrgovic]

Just a tought:

Will they be suing all owners of new sun workstations? All the new Blade type machines have smartcards for user authentification. Tehnically they could all be used for that as well.

Oh no!

[mjphil]

My Soyo Dragon+ MB came with a smart card reader... Whatever shall I do?

Re:BARRATRY and $30,450,000

[Lt Razak]

Oops, you said per Quarter. Stil... multiple by 4...

Guess I won't switch

[jridley]

I was JUST 2 HOURS AGO out at directv.com - I am currently a Dish Network subscriber, and I was thinking about switching because of DirecTiVO - the integrated DirecTV/TiVO combo. Dish Network has a PVR but no TiVO functionality. (yes, a regular TiVO will integrate but only one tuner).

I was very close to ordering DirecTiVO and signing up. I like Dish Network better in general, but TiVO swung the decision for me.

I'm glad this was posted. No way in hell am I switching to DirecTV now. This swung it WAY back the other way.

I actually respected DirecTV/Hughes when I read about the very clever hack they pulled on card reprogrammers a couple of years ago (story here). That's just clever, and I salute them. Technical solutions are fine.

However, anybody starts shotgunning lawyers, they just lost me.

Re:News Item - Feds Sue all US registered Car Owne

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point being? Oh, that's right, you didn't have one. Thanks for playing.

Re:BARRATRY! (PERMITS)

[the_pooh_experience]

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?

It is illegal if you don't have a building permit...

Re: Probable cause.

[coyote-san]

> No question these are pirate devices.

I bought a reader and a number of crypto cards directly from a manufacturer, as part of a Linux SDK kit.

I have never owned a dish system. I have continuously had a cable TV connection in my current resident (close to 10 years), a townhouse oriented in a manner that would make it difficult to set up a dish.

I have been involved in Unix/Linux security systems for a number of years.

I have discussed X.509 certificate authorities countless times in the past, and suggested that crypto cards would be good root certificates for small CAs. (The private key never leaves the cards, when you don't need them you toss them into a safe or safety deposit box, etc.)

Now tell me again where there is any probable cause in my case. I haven't gotten that letter yet, but if I do I'll demand the court award them to compensate me for any and all defense costs because there isn't a shred of probable cause in my case.

To be honest, I was surprised to learn that the dish systems use the same cards I had already purchased for use in experimenting with setting up a PAM module to recognize smart cards - I want something a lot like Solaris where you have to insert the card and enter your passphrase, and when you yank your card out you're automatically logged out. In the long run, it would also be nice to be able to store SSH RSA/DSA keys on the card, etc.

More DIRECTV Hijinks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm convinced that Slashdotters are too addicted to their DIRECTV to really care how evil they are. The following "Full disclosure" has been out for months, but nobody seems to care!

From: http://www.geocities.com/foogert99

DIRECTV, in their haste to make it easier for you to add expensive programming options and order PPV movies, has made it very easy for somebody to hijack your DIRECTV account with just one simple phone call. Once your account has been hijacked, it's easy to:

• Cancel your DIRECTV service
• Change your service package
• View the make, model and location (e.g. Sony TIVO receiver in Living Room) of DIRECTV equipment in your home
• Order Pay-Per-View movies, which *you* will be billed for Activate additional receivers and have them charged to *you*

Submitted to Slashdot, rejected many times...

Remind me...

[dacarr]

Remind me not to get service from them.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[dietlein]

The whole premise is wrong in my opinion, I think I should be able to do what I want with things people give to me or leave on my property.

If someone GIVES you something, yes. If someone LEAVES something on your property, yes. Your argument relies on the fact that these "things" are usually objects, and someone is not leaving them on -everyone's- property. Radio waves do not fit into this category.

If you are beaming your signals into my property, my house, my body, my kids, etc, I will damn well do what I please with them!

Yes, you have that right. You can do what you please with them.

I almost have a duty to intercept them and decode them and make sure they are not harmful in anyway.

I guess my question is this. Do you intercept and decode every radio wave that makes its way onto your property? Or only the ones you think/know contain useful information, like digital television? Do you decode amateur radio traffic? Do you simultaneously listen to every radio station that happens to be availible on your property? Do you decode your neighbors' microwave frequencies from their MICROWAVE? Do you listen to every police band radio transmission that you can find? Do you listen to ELF transmissions designed for communication with submarines? If you do all of this (and more), then I think you win. If not, it sounds like you are taking advantage of a service that is meant to be provided at a cost, not checking to ensure the signals are not harmful in any way.

If they arrived unsolicited in the physical mail they would be mine to keep by federal law no questions asked.

Right, but they don't. See my first paragraph.

You don't want me to do anything with them?? Then keep them off my land and out of my body, problem solved.

Or just don't worry about them. Problem solved. Or... listen to and decode ALL of them in order to make your argument valid. Problem solved.

These are physical radio waves, you are dumping them on my property and I can't do what I want with them?

Yep. That's basically it.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[sipy]

...what ever happened to that mantra? (Did the RIAA kill it?)

Re:Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[Hank Reardon]

Ok, I just can't take it any more. I'm sick and tired of people crying "Innocent until proven guilty! Innocent until proven guilty!" at the drop of a hat. It's obvious that the vast majority of people just don't have a clue what the statement actually means and where it applies!

"Innocent until proven guilty" does not preclude one from being sued. If it did, a suit could not be initiated because the plaintiff (the suer) must have proved that the defendant (the suee) is guilty before filing the suit. This is a classic chicken-and-egg problem if I ever heard of one.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the court system and the juries they employ. Period. I am not a member of the court, so I am free to profess the guilt or innocence of anybody or anything, with or without evidence, until I'm called to serve on a jury. And even at that point, I can still hold the same feelings for everything except for the case I'm currently sitting on.

The battle cry of "Innocent until proven guilty!" is the mark of somebody ignorant about the way that our government works. Unfortunately, this describes just about everybody relying on their public school "Government" classes.

Forcing every person not directly involved in a court case to support the "Innocent until proven guilty" standard would strip the general popluace of the other favorite rallying cry: "The freedom of speech."

In short, I completely with the original poster's spirit: this is a chickenshit response to a problem that DirectTV has. Unfortunately the post itself screams knee-jerk reaction.

And to answer the posters question

Innocent Until Provent Guilty...what ever happened to that mantra?

I'll simply respond: It's alive and well in the courts, where it actually belongs.

Re:Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[sipy]

The battle cry of "Innocent until proven guilty!" is the mark of somebody ignorant about the way that our government works.

Wow. You sound very angry, and degrading everyone that doesn't believe the same thing as you do does not help support your position.

Additionally, you missed the point. You can't go around suing everyone and every thing every time the wind blows just because technically you can. The Judicial system is set up to address grievances, not waste everyone's time.

Pretending to have a grievance does not give you the right to sue someone. (Note: I said pretending.) There is absolutely no link between cause and effect here - the cause being that someone bought a particular xyz-programming-gadget, and the effect - that someone stole DirecTV programming. This is the point. Pretending that there is a causal relationship between the two does not merit a lawsuit. Oh, sure, it's legal to sue someone for this, but it'll get thrown out by the first judge who tests its merits (somethig every judge is required to do).

So, in short, it's about the protection of innocents from frivilous lawsuits, not a statement of absolute fact, right-to-sue, etc.

Please post your position, not insult others; it makes the conversation more interesting.

Re:Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[SuiteSisterMary]

And this is why there are laws to punish frivilous lawsuits.

But the point is, everybody who is sued, arrested, or charged, is, by defintion, innocent at the time of said suit, arrest, or charging. Through the suit, arrest, or charge, they're found responsible, liable, suspect, guilty, or other various statuses, as appropriate to the circumstances.

Re:Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[Hank Reardon]

Yep. Very succinctly put. Exactly right.

I'll put the soapbox back in the closet now, and leave it there until it's really necessary.

Constitution? What Constitution?

[r_j_prahad]

We don't need no steenking Constitution!

What is next? DVDR purchase records?

[nurb432]

Are they going to raid BestBuy and sue people that own DVDR's as everyone knows its for piracy and is never used for legit reasons..

Or how about raids on bookstores? if you buy a book on 'questionable material' you HAVE to be planning something..

This all is getting surreal.. Someone please tell me this isnt really happening...

I predicted this would be a bad year for lawsuits.. but geesh.....

In soviet union...

[Patrick Cable II]

In UNITED STATES, DirecTV uses YOU!

Open letter to Rob Mercer of DirecTV

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't find a way to send this to him, so I thought I'd post it here. Not that he'll read it, but at least I'll feel a tiny bit better while I convince my wife to give up our DirecTV service.

-----

Mr. Mercer,

Regarding this statement:

"I have to say, how innocent is someone who goes to website that is clearly identified as a pirate website that is devoted to selling equipment to steal satellite TV programming, and orders the equipment, knowing full well what they're getting?" says Mercer. "That's quite a stretch."

Suppose I want to buy a gun, and I do the research to identify the kind of gun that I want. I find a store that has the gun I want for the same price as everyone else, but the guy behind the counter (which is, by the way, festooned with a"kill the [racial slur]s" poster) offers me an even better deal: the gun itself, plus a high-powered telescoping sight that he suggests "would be perfect for letting you kill someone -- or something -- at a distance". Now, I'm disgusted by his attitude and by the posters, but boy, that telescoping sight is really really cool, and I can't get it anywhere else, so I make the purchase and happily go off to hunt lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

Now, should I be arrested for murdering people, because I bought the gun and sight from someone who openly thinks that murdering people is a good idea? Should I be sued in civil court for promoting racial violence because I made the purchase there? I would be interested to hear if you can justify it. Just remember, you can't compare it to an illegal gun purchase, because the devices in question are not illegal -- just like most devices that have legitimate and illegitimate uses.

I am a DirecTiVo subscriber, and have been for some time. Tonight, I'll be doing my best to convince my wife that it's time to move on to something better, like less TV or the local cable affiliate. In the meantime, you might want to consider that your company has become an extortionist. I would imagine your shareholders are pleased, since this extortion increases actual revenue by extracting settlements from the innocent along with the guilty in a fashion that covers the cost of operations, while potential revenue lost to pirating can never be turned into actual revenue by any legitimate means. But you already knew that -- after all, I've been a subscriber for years, and you haven't made $3,500 out of me yet.

I'm on the fence

[fishbowl]

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.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[capedgirardeau]

Well, 1. my wifi point is a receiver, and I am not sure if you should be allowed to do anything to my receiver, that is rather different, I am not doing anything to a receiver on their bird, just using what is in my yard or house they put there.

But, 2. If I am broadcasting my traffic and it extends beyond my property into the public space or my neighbor's space, then yes, they and you can do what you want with them, its my fault for letting it happen.

Now I'm off to build a feraday cage around my yard :)

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[switcha]

I almost have a duty to intercept them and decode them and make sure they are not harmful in anyway.

"Lesse....WGN...not harmful.
Telemundo....not harmful.
FoxNews...pretty borderline.
Playboy....not harmful.
Playboy....not harmful.
Playboy...not harmful..."

Quite a pity...

[Anonymous Coward]

... a gun cannot be qualified as a circumvention device.

So, you cant be sued for having a gun (and possibly killing a person in the future) -- but you can be sued for having bought a card reader?!?

Oops, almost forgot! Were talking about profits here, not lives!

My bad... :-/

Mmm-hmmm. But courts disagree. Read Hope's Edge.

[MickLinux]

It seems to me that in the book "Hope's Edge", the sequel to "Diet for a small planet", there was mention about how Gerber wanted to assure that there was no genetically modified corn in their product. In the end, becomes the genetically modified corn cross-polinated the real corn, they had to give up corn and corn products entirely.

Okay. That's their business decision, though actually, in my book, they should have been able to sue the firms that made and distributed the genetically modified corn, because they contaminated Gerber's food supply chain. But that's not the way it works.

In reality, the Gen-Eng companies sued the rest of the corn farmers for using their corn genes IP (remember, they contaminated the public domain stuff) and won.

I don't know what the proper response is: maybe the Amish way of doing things. Maybe, just leaving, and letting them find their own way, or not. But something is wrong.

You are innocent until proven guilty

[lp_bugman]

I was on the impression this is how the legal system works here in USA. Meaning. The defendant only has to prove the device has legal uses (security, automatization, etc)... At that point HUGES has to prove the device was used for something ilegal!

Re:You are innocent until proven guilty

[Hank Reardon]

YAY! Somebody who understands what "innocent until proven guilty" means (I have a rant below about it)!

The defendant only has to prove the device has legal uses (security, automatization, etc)... At that point HUGES has to prove the device was used for something ilegal!

Unfortunately, I don't know how the DMCA fiddles with this normally true statement. The DMCA makes it ilegal to purchase or have in your possession copyright circumvention devices. The DMCA, if I remember correctly, imposes stiff criminal penalties but isn't a civil statute.

It'll be interesting (in a kind of scary way) to see if Hughes tries to use the DMCA in the civil case...

The pragmatic situation

[lysium]

The judge, unless a saintly figure, is going to be annoyedby all this extra hand-holding in an otherwise tedious civil case. If you happen to go before a jury of peers, they will get the impression that you are either (a) a destitue fool; or (b) insane. Self-representation puts you in the distinguished company of Zacarias Moussaoui, terrorist, and Colin Ferguson, LIRR gunman.

It's an unfortunate situation. The legal system has far outgrown the DIY aspect of self-representation in the same way that most sciences have outgrown the DIY basement laboratory.

----------------

Re:The pragmatic situation

[tomhudson]

***The legal system has far outgrown the DIY aspect of self-representation in the same way that most sciences have outgrown the DIY basement laboratory.***

Right, and we work in a business that independent do-it-yourselfers have no hope of succeeding in against the Borg from Redmond.

You forgot to add Mahatma Ghandi to your list

.. Remember, you don't have to present any evidence if you think that there has been no case made - present a motion to the judge for a directed verdict.

Besides, the whole idea is to annoy the judge - when he sees 100 frivolous suits wasting his time, all brought by DirecTV, he's gonna slap them hard.

It's like the SCO case. They have none, at least vis. linux. Would you waste time and money on a lawyer for something that anyone on the ball can win?

Re:The pragmatic situation

[lysium]

You forgot to add Mahatma Ghandi to your list Exceptional people do exceptional things. Most people would not be able to educate themselves in law well enough for success -- that is my point. Probably not most of the consumers targeted in this case, who, unlike Gandhi, stand alone.

A small percentage of inner-city children grow up to become professional atheletes. Does this mean other children should focus all of their development in sports and be SOL if they fail? Of course not!

--------------

Re:The pragmatic situation

[TheLink]

Ghandi was willing to endure jail time and all sorts of suffering for his cause.

There are other forms of entertainment than TV

[cute-boy]

If I used such a service, I'd simply unsubscribe.

What a wonderful service this TV service must provide! I can barely find any content on TV I want to watch, and the really good quality programs often go out on free to air non-commercial channels anyway. I've also noticed that when I miss a program I'd decided to try an watch, I don't die.

I'd rather be listening to radio or reading a good book or having a conversation with someone or going for a mountain bike ride or a swim or rock-climbing or going to the cinema or fixing up my house or cook a nice meal or even working...

RG

Smart Card Security

[thogard]

If they know of 9000 people who bought a device just to get around paying for one pay TV system, how many people out there can rip off the new credit/debit chips cards? I see the ability of ripping off the cable company as something most people will tell their friends down at the pub but when it comes to stealing cash out of someones account, most people that could do that won't talk about it. 5 years ago the number of fake chip cards had already exceeded the number of fake mag stripe cards by several million so I wonder how bad the fraud rate is on these new banking smart cards.

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[keesh]

Sounds like you're bullshitting. Admit it troll, you just made the whole thing up...

Sounds scary

[Indigo]

Office of Signal Integrity? For vague yet disturbing bureaucracy names, that's almost as good as Ministry of Truth! I'm guessing that these are the folks responsible for all the black helicopters I've been seeing.

"only" suits.. for now

[nurb432]

Look at the recent bills being introduced, that would make this 'potential use' sort of suit a federal offence, subject to arrest.

And look at the DMCA, there have been arrests due to 'potental useage' issues..

Just beacuse he was off slightly doesnt make it any less scary.

What if...

[phorm]

You are a legitimate subscriber to the service? i.e. you pay for all your stations... but say perhaps you are trying to tune everything in for a TV decoded on your linux box, if you're the linux-uberhacker type (remember hacker != cracker).

So you're decoding the signal... but you're paying for it anyways. Is it still illegal? Is DTV allowed to say what I can decode my signal for, or how? Just wondering... (my guess is they'd probably try to regardless)

Re: Probable cause.

[ConsumedByTV]

Can you point me to how you have set this up?
I would really like to setup something like that for my backup server with loop-aes hacked in there.

It would rock my world if you could point this out to me.

Old news.....

[Retarded_Ninja]

I submitted this exact story 3 weeks ago but it did not get posted. It actually goes a step farther.

DirectTV sent out letters to people that they were suing. In the manner in which they did it, many people believed it to be a scam so they did not reply. The courts ruled that anyone that does not respond automatically is ordered to pay the settlement ammount.

Many of the people are now trying to fight the judgement for a few reasons:

DirectTV filed a lawsuit on every customer they found in the company's records that theyve raided without asking:

did the people recieve the product?
did they use it to steal DirectTV broadcasts?
did they use it for legitimate use?

There are many other questions they chose not ask.
This is just another way that Big Companies can do what they please without regard for the constitution. You can thank the corrupt American legal system and our wonderful politicians.

Thank you America, Thank you!

Cop out

[oogoliegoogolie]

I agree, if this guy wasn't stealing satellite then he copped out. If it was a few hundred dollars then I could see someone paying up to avoid any future hassles, but $3500? Who the hell has $3500 to throw away for nothing at the drop of a hat, yet not have the time or money to fight back?

It happened to me, but I didn't do anything wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as the subject says, this same thing happened to me, but I didn't do anything wrong, unless you count buying the card reader as "something wrong".

In the quickest of analogies I would like to point out the error in the way DTV is doing business in this situation.

"A man walks into a gun shop and buys a gun with the intention of harming someone other than himself. The man comes to his senses before committing this atrocious act. Should the man be arrested for simply having the gun or for buying it, even though he did nothing wrong?"

This is exactly what happened to me. I will admit a friend told me about doing this exact thing. I started buying the necessary components, but lost interest as I knew it was not a good idea. I'm not Mr Perfect, but I have some moral compass. Anyway I get said letter and in short time clear it up without paying a dime, because I did nothing wrong, besides buying the device.

My real comment is that I though we were all Innocent until proven Guilty? If the device in question is not illegal then how can someone be sued when they have done nothing wrong.

Just my thoughts and ramblings.

Money worth more than life

[Tony]

The later we may be taking about a few cents per diluted share. The former we are taking about an innocents person life.

From the looks of our laws, the "few cents a share" means more than an innocent life.

Why are criminal corporations still in business? (Enron, Shell, Exxon, and a slew of others have financed armed raids in various countries, in which people have died.) Why is it that someone can share a file on a P2P network and end up paying the RIAA for the rest of their lives, but the guy in charge of the company (Enron) that fucked over California (and a good chunk of the rest of the world) goes free, without paying a dime?

I guess it means the biggest crime is not being rich.

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[Guppy06]

"but I spend a good 15-20 minutes writing a good detailed post based on RL with a few errors and you gotta be nitpicky?"

Except that, if this were truly real life, whose signal it was you were stealing would not be vague. Aside from the corporate logos on the dish, receiver box, and possibly even the smart card, there's also the logos on the menu guides and the commercials from the provider on the channels you watch that you'd have to conveniently "forget" in order to confuse the two. If you watch one, odds are you won't even hear about the other one on the channels you watch.

This isn't a typo here, this is something that throws your entire post into doubt, even without reading the rest of the posts on this thread.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[Guppy06]

"If you are beaming your signals into my property, my house, my body, my kids, etc, I will damn well do what I please with them!"

I see we aren't familiar with the concepts of rights-of-way or servitudes. Because that's essentially what EM broadcasts are in the United States.

"I almost have a duty to intercept them and decode them and make sure they are not harmful in anyway."

OK, that's just downright funny. Aside from the dangers you could detect with a signal strength meter (and it seems pretty obvious these microwaves have yet to turn you into a crispy critter), the only way these signals could be "harmful" to you is their content (maybe you think of pr0n as "harmful"). And if you didn't decode the signal, you wouldn't know about the "harm" and there would be no harm to be had on your part.

"You don't want me to do anything with them?? Then keep them off my land and out of my body, problem solved."

Look at your deed and see what it has to say about rights-of-way and servitudes. Especially the bit about how, by signing the document, you explicitly let these people do exactly what you're complaining about. If you want to go off in the radically libertarian direction, you should be more careful about what you sign.

And as for your body, you had better start taking the sun to court, because it is by far the number one source of microwave radiation in the star system.

"These are physical radio waves, you are dumping them on my property and I can't do what I want with them?"

If you bought said property in the United States, no, you can't.

Re:CALL THEM

[grwufwuf]

We are the people who others ask about such things... "You know gadgets and waste 3/4 of your life in from one screen or another... What would you recommend I go with?" :-/

Think "word of mouth". Buzz words like that really get to marketing people.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[Guppy06]

"Passively decrypting an RF signal that passes through one's body should be completely legal. (Assuming you don't use any copyrighted code to do so)"

But if it were possible for people (that don't work for the NSA) to passively decode these broadcasts, the solution wouldn't involve boxes that require a telephone connection to the provider you're stealing from, let alone smart cards.

"Both of your analogies involve actively transmitting and interfering with someone's phone or internet connection."

But both of those analogies involve something that touches the original poster's property.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[eLore]

You have a misunderstanding of your phone, in that case. You see, it's the phone that broadcasts the signal. In that case, It's Not OK for you to broadcast a signal that happens to activate my base station. (You received no permission from me to do so...)

Retailers too

[gad_zuki!]

I remember buying a directv box from Best Buy and having the saleskid offer me $100 card insurance because, "Your card can go anytime and Directv will charge you $100 for a replacement!" I should have asked why he's trying to sell me such a shoddy product from such an unethical company.

Funny how the media isn't cracking down on this. Oh that's right DirecTV is now owned by News Corp, you know Rupert Murdoch's empire including many media outlets including the infamously pro-corporate Fox News cable channel.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[jgoemat]

I see a lot of replies say it's not ok because you'd be beaming signals back into their property as well. Maybe a cleaner way to get the point across would be just to listen on on those signals.

Would it be wrong to sniff all wireless packets to read someone's email, see what websites they visit, and find their passwords? Would it be wrong to read that risque email from your wife or listen to you having phone sex (cordless phone) with your mistress?

I'll say, my _grandfather_ told me a story...

[ungerware]

My grandfather knew Alice and Ray. Before they moved into the church, they lived in New York, where Ray was working as a draftsman for my grandfather in his architectural firm.

He _almost_ bought Alice, BTW.

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[t0qer]

All of you are just hating cause you can't write good posts like me, ya I checked all you playa haters out, nothing but a bunch of +1's if lucky.

DirecTV can't afford to lose the lawsuit

[eyeota]

DirecTV 's tactics are very simple. They are trying to scare the common person into settling out. The reality is, DirecTV can't afford to lose a trial against an individual otherwise it would set a prescedence. Once the prescendence is set, it is now defense for everyone on their list. I haven't found a single case where an individual ended up going to court. Many have settled out, but none have completed a trial and that's no suprise. Dealers/Distributors are a whole different story. Each dealer/distrubtor's situation is uniuqe unlike the suit against the individuals for posessing programmers.

Re:DirecTV can't afford to lose the lawsuit

[Dun Malg]

precedent, not "prescendence".

Re:So...

[The Dobber]

I can paste it into my address box in 5 mouse/keystrokes. So its an economy thing.

Legal Subscriber ticked off!

[gmby]

I sudscribed for the service and was told the only way to get service was with a one year "contract." So needing something to watch in the late of night when the only thing on broadcast is "Paid programming"; I signed up. Boy was I pissed when half the channels I pay DTV for are also "Paid Programming" (most of the night!) sold to the highest bidder. The SciFi being the one I realy wanted. (sad)

So: I propose that maybe a "class action" against DTV for selling MY "Paid Service" to these TV Spammers!

I'm now looking into ways to get out of this breech of contract with them. I don't want to give my "Hard Earned Freedom Dollars" to these "Mafia Style Corporations."

Signed: On pissed off American!

9000 testimonials for cable

[Crashmarik]

I can't get satelite, but if I could and I had a choice between a company that was actively prosecuting its consumers and my meerly incompetent cable co. I would have to pick the cable co. no matter how bad they were.

Which is better than what he did

[spoco2]

As from the article: '"I didn't know what to do, I was completely flabbergasted. So I sent the money in," says Sosa. "I have a livelihood, and I have a family, and there are a lot of things that I`d rather be than right." '

So, this guy, who had done NOTHING wrong, and could easily prove why he'd bought the device, just caved in... God the whole suing thing is making me sick... the US are the kings of it, but by no means alone... here in Australia we're heading down the same stupid, slippery slope... suiing for everything... and the suer keeps getting money because people cave in and pay 'because fighting it would be too expensive'

It's ridiculous that completely innocent people are starting to just give up and pay up for no good reason because of the way the legal system is perceived to be. (Rightly or wrongly)

Re:Which is better than what he did

[Hognoxious]

1. Find Sosa's (and other gullible people's) addresses.
2. Send bogus threatening letters.
3. ...
4. Profit!!!!

And there was me about to buy one

[NoMercy]

I mean, why type in a password every feckin mornin wouln't it be so cool to have a smart card based login and access system, though biometrics are lookin sexier...

Who would want to break a satelite box anyway, 500 channels of c***, I get enough c*** on my 4 channels I don't need or want any more :)

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[bobbozzo]

Actually this would be legal.

(Unfortunately) there are laws prohibiting cracking sat signals, but not for eavesdropping.

Re:So...can they sue Microsoft

[WindowsTroll]

Microsoft's own support forums show how to install and use smart card readers. How ironic that M$ might be helping 'pirates'.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/defaul t. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/howto /smrtcard.asp

The article didn't mention

[bobbozzo]

DirectTV are also sending similar letters to people who are buying blank DTV cards on eBay.

A friend of mine is being asked to pay $3500 for buying some (3 or 4 over 1 year) HU cards.

They did NOT accuse him of having a card programmer.

He did not sell or give the cards to anyone else.

His lawyer friend is advising him to pay up.

Re:I'm sorry...

[martyros]

Yes, Michigan! I feel better now -- it just about makes up for the stupid anti-P2P law one of our guys is pushing in congress...

Privacy Issues?

[crashnbur]

What right does DirecTV have to access private consumer information on the purchase of such products, and what right does DirecTV have to use such information to conduct their business decisions?

These are not rhetorical questions. I think an understanding of DirecTV's legal rights with this information might be important. Comparing what happens, what is legal, and what is ethical certainly could have an impact on how the tech community views issues such as this.

I luv giant photos...

[orius_khan]

Dammit smacktard! Could you resize the pages down so that we can look at more than 1/16th of the page at once??

I.... love.... reading... only... one or.... two... words... at a... time.

The fact that you're posting a link to 9 images, each roughly 1MB in size on slashdot, means that you are either masochistic, or completely else oblivious to what you're doing. Just because IE6 scales down images to fit in your browser window, doesn't mean that your router won't be screaming in pain if 100,000 people all hit your page at once...

Re:I luv giant photos...

[cdf12345]

gonna have pdf's within 24 hours...

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[ChaoticLimbs]

Both of your analogies are completely flawed and without merit. The reason is that in your analogies, a bi-directional communication is established, and the equipment that you are using is owned by another party. There is a difference between intercepting and decoding a radio transmission and hijacking an RF device by simple proximity to the device. For example, I can purchase a license to use commercial radio service between two mobile sales trailers which have opened to sell gyrocopter plans. Like the ones you see advertised in Popular Science. I transmit the information in FAX format between the trailers so that I only have to store the information at my office downtown which has more security. Lets say someone intercepts this info and builds a gyrocopter using my plans. They don't distribute the plans, they just build to my plans. They haven't broken any laws, especially if they didn't make a copy on paper and sell it to anyone. Information cannot be copyrighted, only the original words can be.
The same thing can be said for DirecTV. If I don't make copies of their works when I program a card, and the info on the card was created purely by reverse engineering the transmission format, I haven't broken copyright laws unless I then copy or resell the data I intercept. That is, until recently congress gave digital works more protection than analog works by passing the DMCA. This clearly violates constitutional equal protection guarantees and fair use provisions of US copyright laws, and as such, needs to be rewritten or struck.

I bet it costs them more money doing this than not

[HanzoSan]

They lose more money chasing these pirates than they lose from the piracy itself.

Whats the point of thousands of lawsuits

Show me a cheaper smartcard reader

[BigDish]

Show me a cheaper smartcard reader than the ones sold by pirate TV dealers. I'll bet you find that the ones sold by Dish/DTV hacking dealers cost 1/2 the price of a normal computer security smart card reader, and they are more flexible. Even if the programmers are designed for hacking, they still have perfectly legimate uses, and I'd certainly have bought one to save $100 (over the price of a more "white collar unit) if I needed a smart card reader. FYI, I don't even own any DirecTV receivers, so don't think I'm trying to defend myself. I'm saying that even if the cards can be used for hacking DTV, there no more legal than a CDR because it can be used to copy a CD.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[Mjec]

These are physical radio waves, you are dumping them on my property and I can't do what I want with them?

Absolutly. The company has no right to sue you for simply decoding the signals which are being sent to your house. If you were leeching cable, and physically damaged it, that would be a different matter. I don't know how the bypass system in question works, but as long as it doesn't represent you as someone else its not fraud. If you arn't SENDING any data, well its yours to recieve. The only problem is (and I don't know about this, I dont live in the US) might be illegality of technology to break encrypted signals. Is this illegal? Doesn't the DCMA make it illegal or something? The whole "This message has been ROT26 encrypted: you are currently breaking the law by viewing it". However, if that is true they can't be sued by DTV and instead should be prosecuted under federal law.

Logically I can see no reason why these lawsuits should hold up. But IANAL - perhaps there is something which protects big business. But you're right, IMHO. If it's broadcast to everyone, and I'm one of everyone, just try and stop me from decoding it, simply as a cryptographic exercise!

Minor mistake in Register article

[Froboz23]

There is a minor financial mistake in the Register article. The Register reported Huges Electronics second quarter revenues as $2.4 million. The actual revenues for Q2 were $2.37 billion.

I wasn't aware that Huges Electronics was owned by General Motors. That's about as deep as deep pockets can get.

Their earnings announcement can be found here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030716/1215001152_1.html

Here's an interesting excerpt:

DirecTV's 2003 revenue target was raised to $7.5 billion from $7.3 billion, while operating profit before depreciation and amortization is now anticipated to be $1 billion, compared with April's projection of $900 million.

Let us all shed a tear for DirectTV's lost revenue.

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[Kamel Jockey]

Both of your analogies are completely flawed and without merit. The reason is that in your analogies, a bi-directional communication is established

Nope... the parent poster said he is entitled to do anything he wants to any signal entering his house. If I apply that condition to what I am doing, then "anything I want" to do with that signal can include bi-directional communications using said signal.

I have canceled my DirecTV subscription today

[Scummer]

I have been a customer for this company for more than 2 years now. But just out of protest against this lawsuit (and i told the customer representative this on the phone) i canceled my DirecTV service today.

I know, i'm only one customer, so not a big loss, but at least i can sleep tonight.

Thomas

Re:I have canceled my DirecTV subscription today

[CrackHappy]

Scummer, thank god for people like you!

The more people hear about this, the more will cancel their subscriptions, and the more likely DirecTV will get the message that this is a BAD idea. They will end up losing WAY more money by pursuing this kind of tactic than by taking the time and effort to investigate who they are after and determining whether they really are pirates.

To all you DirecTV subscribers, this is the kind of action that will really get the message through. No matter how good their service is, is it worth the price we will be paying as a society if this kind of corporate bullying isn't stopped?

Together, we can make a difference.

Re:I have canceled my DirecTV subscription today

[Scummer]

Heh, after the customer rep heard my reason why i was canceling, she was actually asking me, if she could keep me with shaving 10$ off the subscription price for the next 6 month. Friendly, but firmly i said, "no thanks, not interested".

Its all about the principle and you have to stick to it.

Re: Probable cause.

[fred911]

>To be honest, I was surprised to learn that the dish systems use the same cards I had already purchased

Here's the whole spec for ISO 7816
http://www.cardwerk.com/smartcards/smartcard _stand ard_ISO7816.aspx

How much more of this can you take?

[tjstork]

How much more proof do you need that corporate leaders are out to get you?

Revolution is the only answer.

Re:So...

[kleine18]

um... no... It is onlt a reader. If it was a writer, DTV would have sued them too.

Ageism in Slashdot

[SubliminalLove]

Twenty years old. Heard it. Love it. Have it on my box.

D0n7 d35krymn473 0n teh K1DD13z.

Sorry, are you too old to understand that? :)

Benjamin

Re:Ageism in Slashdot

[ShavenYak]

N0, 1 k@n r33d j00r 1337$p33k 1n $m@11 d0$3$. 17 61v3z m3 @ #e@d@c#3 $0m371m3$, 7#0u6#.

Re: The bastion of freedom and democracy

[PetWolverine]

So I can Reply to This, or I can Parent.

Re: Probable cause.

[computechnica]

The US Air Force is in the process of issueing everone of it's military members a 32K smart card as a ID card. We are using them to digitaly sign E-mail and access computer systems. So now everone has a smartcard reader on there desktop. WOW!! we must all be pirate thieves.

PS. I have been a paying for DishTV since I moved to the backwoods.

Correct me if I'm wrong

[GnarlyNome]

Didn't the FCC rule in the 1920's that any signal that was Broadcast was fair game?

You have to intend damage...

[bluprint]

Slander is VERY difficult to prove in court. You not only have to prove that the statement is false (that's the easy part) you have to prove INTENT to damge one's character, a virtually impossible task. IANAL, that was told to me by a prosecuting attourney...so take it as you will.

Re:You have to intend damage...

[mkldev]

Intent to damage character is implicit in the action. I believe the word you're looking for here is "malice", not "intent". Intent, at least in cases of defamation (libel, slander), can be unintentional, as strange as that sounds.

For a public figure to claim libel or slander, you have to prove malice, i.e. that you knew the statement to be false and made it to deliberately attack the reputation of the person or company.

If you are a private individual, i.e. not a politician, celebrity, etc., you have to do nothing of the sort. You must simply prove that your reputation was injured, that the statement was false, and that at least one other person saw it. Of course, if you can prove malice, then your damages will be much greater.

Of course, IANAL....

cynicism is not insightful

[Thinkit3]

Especially on /. . I'm guessing someone came up with a "cynic AI" and is just spamming the same crap over and over, with words and situations changed.

Sue DirectTV

[kspiteri]

How do DirectTV program their own cards? Where are the other satellite companies? They should be suing DirectTV for owning smart card programming equipment.

Re:I'm sorry...

[einTier]

Well, to be honest with you, there's a small thing called attourney-client privledge. So, even if my lawyer friend knows, he wouldn't tell me. He won't even tell me the details about the shit my brother is involved in, though my brother will tell me if I just ask. Also, if his clients come in and tell him they are guilty, it limits many of the things he's going to be able to do for them in a court of law. So, although he will tell you it's in your best interest to tell him the truth, he will also tell you that it will be very difficult to represent you as innocent if you tell him you're guilty.

In conclusion, I don't know the number of innocent to guilty, and I suspect my friend doesn't either. I do know that at least one is not guilty. Take that for whatever it's worth.

Re:I'm sorry...

[einTier]

And that's pretty much what my friend tells people: "call me when you get served, then it's real."

Some people believe that contacting them early is the best deal, and you might get them to drop the thing entirely. My friends says if they are going to file on you, they're going to file, since filing 101 cases isn't much more work than filing 100, especially when you're just using a template like DTV is. Some people also think they'll get a better deal settling early, and that may be true, but in civil law, just about everything is negotiable.

That said, it's pretty much in your best interest to settle unless you've purchased more than a few devices. Fighting it out may be the right thing to do, but it costs a whole lot of money to be right -- probably more than it will cost you to be 'wrong'. It's also a civil court, where the burden of proof is much less, and you can't plead the fifth if you decide to take the stand. On top of that, it's federal court, and there's a lot more room for the amateur lawyer to screw up and get a default judgement rendered.

Making everyone a criminal is dangerous: for them!

[christophe]

With this logic:
I own a knife, so I am a murderer. I even own many knives, so I am a mass murderer.
I own a CD burner, so I must be guilty of copyright infringement (no: theft of IP) on 2/3 of the MPAA catalog, and I will have to give them 99% of my earnings during my whole life.

So, as a criminal, I've got nothing else to lose, and I can go shoot their lawyers; they destroyed my life, so I'll shorten theirs. And the world may be a better place after that.
Hey, this is the thinking beside any desesperate terrorism (Palestinians, poor people in corrupted countries, and so on)!

I wish I could say I'm happy not to live in the US, but this insanity comes slowly into Europe too. I'm afraid getting rid of all lawyers would not be enough.

(PS: Message for you little CIA computer reading all the web searching for terrorists: no, I don't intend to kill anybody. Please don't file me as a terrorist for explaining how this insane system will create them. Thanks.)

Re:Good News For Nerds

[zcat_NZ]

ditto;
* 2003-07-17 10:06:36 Doing your prostate a favour (articles,humor) (rejected)

The trolls would have been worth reading too..

Re:It happened to me, but I didn't do anything wro

[Jesus IS the Devil]

My real comment is that I though we were all Innocent until proven Guilty? If the device in question is not illegal then how can someone be sued when they have done nothing wrong.

Actually that's not true. You are presumed not guilty until proven guilty is closer to reality (even though it's still not quite it). If one were presumed innocent then there wouldn't be cause for suspicion in the first place. That phrase is nonsense if you ask any lawyer. It's nothing but a mere catch-phrase for the common folks. :)

As for the lawsuit, they can sue anyone they damn well please. Now winning the suit is another matter altogether. So no, being sued is not the same as being guilty.

Hope that clears up a couple of things.

Linux on DiercTV Cards

[TheStudent-stickit.n]

A friend of mine approched me with the problem (he bought one of these things) about 2 months ago. He asked me if there was a way I could get Linux running on one of these. If so He could prove legit use of this device. I have tried to no avail. anybody up for getting together on this project?

Also as a note. He also purchased a addon for his reciever as it seems he was told directv could remotly zap his card without it.
anybody know how this works?

Re:Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales plo

[t0qer]

That had to be the most poetic summary I've ever read, and thanks for not dogging my post like all these other people did. Judging from your user ID I can see you've been here long enough to know not to be a jackass, these other people though... Sort of reminds me of the monty python holy grail skit.. Yah this has been done before but maybe it can educate the new batch of /.'ers replyin on this thread.

FIRST VILLAGER: We have found a troll. May we burn him?
ALL VILLAGERS: Burn him! Burn him! Burn him! Burn him! Burn him!
BEDEVERE: How do you know he is a troll?
FIRST VILLAGER: he looks like one!
ALL VILLAGERS: Yeah! Yeah! Burn him! Yeah!
BEDEVERE: Bring him forward.
[They bring him forward - a handsome YOUNG MAN (TOQER) dressed up as a troll.]
troll: I'm not a troll. I'm not a troll.
BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are dressed as one.
troll: They dressed me up like this.
ALL VILLAGERS: We didn't, we didn't!
troll: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
[BEDEVERE takes his nose off.]
BEDEVERE: Well?
FIRST VILLAGER: ... Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE: The nose?
FIRST VILLAGER: And the hat. But he is a troll.
ALL VILLAGERS: Yeah! We burn him! Yeah! Burn him!
BEDEVERE: Did you dress him up like this?
FIRST VILLAGER: No! No! No! No! No!... Yes .. Yes ... A bit. A bit. he has got a wart!
BEDEVERE: What makes you think he is a troll?
SECOND VILLAGER: Well, he turned me into a newt!
BEDEVERE: [after a pause] A newt?
[Othims stare and look at SECOND VILLAGER, who is plainly a human, not a newt.]
SECOND VILLAGER: [Notices the stares. After a pause:] I got better.
ALL VILLAGERS: Burn him anyway! Burn him! Burn him! Burn him!
BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Thime are ways of telling whethim he is a troll.
[ARTHUR and PATSY ride up at this point and watch what follows with interest]
ALL VILLAGERS: Are thime? Thime are? What are they? Tell us! Do they hurt?
BEDEVERE: Tell me ... What do you do with trolls?
ALL VILLAGERS: Burn them! Burn them! Burn them up!
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from trolls?
FIRST VILLAGER: More trolls!
SECOND VILLAGER: Sh!
THIRD VILLAGER: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So why do trolls burn?
FOURTH VILLAGER: [pianissimo] ... Because they're made of wood...?
BEDEVERE: Good.
[PEASANTS stir uneasily then come round to this conclusion.]
ALL VILLAGERS: Oh! Oh yeah!
BEDEVERE: So. How do we tell whethim he is made of wood?
FIRST VILLAGER: Build a bridge out of him!
BEDEVERE: Ah ... but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
ALL VILLAGERS: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Uhh...
BEDEVERE: Uh, does wood sink in water?
ALL VILLAGERS: No! No! No! It floats! It floats! Throw him into the pond! The pond!
BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?
ALL VILLAGERS: ... Bread! ...Apples! ... Uh, very small rocks! Cider! Gra- Gravy! Chimries! Mud! Churches! Churches! Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR: A duck!
[They all turn and look at ARTHUR. BEDEVERE looks up very impressed.]
BEDEVERE: Exactly. So... logically ...
FIRST VILLAGER: [beginning to pick up the thread] If... he ... weighs.. the same.. as a duck ... he's made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And thimefore?
ALL VILLAGERS: A troll! A troll! A troll!

Kitchen knife used to hold up liquor store

[Rogerborg]

Owner sues every knife purchaser in the country.

FSF, ACLU, Congress, get on the damn ball.

What if you sold, gave away or lost the device?

[Rogerborg]

You can't hand it over, so you get sued for something that you don't have?

Why oh why did I get an IT degree rather than going to law school? It's a license to print money.

Rule 23: Class actions

[werdna]

Can you cite that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of anything like that.

I'm quite right. It is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 ("sue or be sued"), an equal opportunity monstrosity.

And it seems wrong.

You have made very clear how much you don't like it. That doesn't make it right or wrong, however. It certainly doesn't make it illegal.

If this is the case, why doesn't the RIAA use this tactic?

I presume they decided it was unhelpful for them to provide anyone with a mailing list of all the defendants, and costly for them to seek class action proceedings.

Being wrong within an allegation doesn't make it objectively baseless, that is a sham.

It does make it objectiveley baseless and a sham if the allegation is made without any due diligence in determining whether the allegation is correct.

If you say so. I'm here to tell you that what you are stating wouldn't likely make the cut in the United States to avoid dismissal on pleadings or summary judgment dismissal of a barratry/abuse of process action. f you are right, the sham defendants may have a rule 11 claim, and will ream DirectTV in the end. If you are wrong, well, time will tell. Our gainsaying each other in this thread won't prove the point -- I was simply trying to show you the elements of barratry, and to indicate that what you describe probably isn't it.

We are a nation grounded in the right to petition, which includes that right to sue -- so long as the SOLE reason isn't to harm people -- even if the principal and guiding reason is to do so.

How can you actually believe that? [the elements of objectively baseless]

You confuse my statement about what is the law with a statement of my beliefs. However, to some extent, they conform:

I believe deeply in our constitution, and am informed by applicable case law. Check out the Noerr Pennington doctrine in Antitrust for an example of how this works in practice.

I agree that we have the right to sue people that harm us. But I don't think it is written anywhere that we have the right to sue anyone that we think may have harmed us or could have harmed us had they wanted to without having some significant evidence that suggests someone actually DID harm us.

Substitute free speech for "right to sue people," and you may begin to see my problem with your qualifications. Harm is in the eyes of the person sued. We cannot simultaneously protect a right to petition and place heavy burdens on a plaintiff to "be right in fact" or to make some heavy threshold of "due dilligence." Against the person who sues just to harm and without any probable cause, there are causes of action. However, objective baselessness of the lawsuit or threat of it is a heavy, constitutionally required, threshold designed to preserve our rights -- and it is a significant burden for the prevailing defendant to overcome.

I thought it was a travesty for the Nazis to march in Skokie. But I think there is little doubt in my mind that they had a right (no moral right, but a constitutional right) to do so. Likewise, I can't preserve your right to petition government and at the same time complain about not being able to limit lawsuits I don't like.

Re:Rule 23: Class actions

[letxa2000]

I'm quite right. It is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 ("sue or be sued"), an equal opportunity monstrosity.

I Googled it and read a number of pages. It looks to me like it explains the civil procedure, but I didn't find any reference that says a single plaintiff can indiscriminantly sue a "class" of defendents. Can you give me an exact paragraph citation where I can find that? It just seems that if that were the case that we'd see more lawsuits of that type, and I've never heard of one.

Of course, DirecTV goes after people individually. The problem is that they do so indiscriminantly. I'm not seeing where that is defined, encouraged, or protected by rule 26.

Likewise, I can't preserve your right to petition government and at the same time complain about not being able to limit lawsuits I don't like.

Petitioning the government and limiting frivolous lawsuits against non-government organizations and individuals are two entirely different topics.

Parent - not informative, just wrong.

[Hittite Creosote]

No, a million is 1,000,000 in both the UK and the US. The difference is in what the definition of a billion is - in the US, it is a thousand million, in the UK it is strictly a million million, but the US sense is increasingly used.

So many points, so little time

[Ath]

I received a letter. I ignored it. I received the second letter and a form lawsuit complaint with my name filled in. I wrote a response letter. Now we will see what they do, but I can tell you their verbal position was "Pay or we will sue you."

I did quite a bit of reading and luckily, there are quite a few victories against DTV now. I learned the following points which are very important.

1) DTV is suing based only on the purchase of a smart card programmer.

2) DTV never does any additional research to determine whether the named defendant could or is stealing the satellite signal.

3) DTV verbally assures you that purchase and/or possession is enough proof.

4) Every judge so far has disagreed and ruled in favor of the defendant who fights the lawsuit.

5) DTV wins a lot of default judgments because defendants ignore the lawsuit.

6) DTV includes a claim that it can sue you under a federal criminal law. Judges have ruled every time that this is not true and dismiss this claim.

The fact is, DTV is losing in every single case where someone fights it. Why? Because they only have the purchase records for a smart card programmer. This is not enough legally.

As everyone has already said, DTV is setting the settlement amount so that people will settle instead of pay more to an attorney. I personally dispute this conclusion, as many experienced attorneys can now make this go away for a lot less than $3,500.

And lest you think I am just one of those guilty people who wants to fight, I will add a little fact to the details. I live in Europe. That's right. If DTV sues me, they have a little problem proving that I stole their signal because it is completely IMPOSSIBLE! But they have another little problem. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will let me get quite some money if they sue me with such a frivolous lawsuit. Ya see, DTV doesn't know something else about me. I'm a pissed off attorney right now.

Re:So many points, so little time

[MImeKillEr]

Good luck to you.

I'd be interested in knowing how this unravels. Care to note it in your Journal?

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[Apathetic1]

The Supreme Court in Canada agrees with the previous poster. Whatever gets beamed into my house, I can legally decode. Bonus. I'm sure this is one reason our satellite provider is rolling the codes once an hour now.

DTV can go to hell, use DISH network!

[scharkalvin]

I used to suscribe to Telocity DSL, which was bought out by DTV. I canceled my DSL with them and went with a local Bell when I moved. Since then I've been getting tons of phone calls from DTV trying to sell me their satelite service. My phone numbers are now on the don't call list and if they DO ever call me again, I'm gona sue THEM! I'd rather have cable then use their satelite TV service (or go with DISH network instead). DTV=SCO=M$=GWB

Give them a pice of your mind

[aldousd666]

https://signin.directv.com/DTVAPP/glb/Confirm_Feed back.jsp Tell them what you think. See if they like being slashdotted.

Re:It happened to me, but I didn't do anything wro

[Goobah]

It sounds a bit like minority report to me. They're persecuting the guilty before they're even guilty.

Like it's been stated in many posts, people use these smart card devices for legit. reasons. What about the aspiring robotics designer trying to pioneer a new smart robot that changes its configuration based on what card is input (If someone uses that idea, I want credit dammit), and they happen to also be a DTV customer?

There are many legal uses for smart cards that have nothing to do with DirecTV. I actually used to be a Dish network subscriber, and even though the picture was nice, it was a LOT more money in the end (boxes for the 6 TV's in my house, special LNB for all those boxes, blah blah), the quality was only marginally better than our cable system (and that's not saying much). And if it rained/snowed/got cloudy/the cat walked by the TV, out goes the signal.

My advice to everyone who has DTV, dump it. Read a book, its more stimulating. Once you've tried both cable and satellite, you quickly find out the benefits of satellite TV are few.

(Note to DirecTV big-wigs: I'm not, never have been, and will NEVER be a subscriber. I never have bought a smart card reader, and I don't even download MP3's or use Kazaa. Piss off.)

DirecTV Purchased by IRS

[neocronos]

News Flash - DirecTV has been purchased by the IRS. The company slogan has been changed to "Guilty Until Proven Innocent." All DirecTV subscribers will now be required to complete an 86-page form every April 15 to deny piracy. More at 11.

Hitmen.

[Grendel Drago]

Well... this model would have probably helped them more than the standard one. Pooling the settlement money that way and making the judge disappear would have sent a pretty strong message...

--grendel drago

Re:I'm sorry...

[Dun Malg]

My guess is they're virtually all guilty. All this talk about barratry and misuse of the legal system doesn't make sense if DirecTV actually has a legal case against almost everyone they are suing.

You say it yourself: "virtually all are guilty". Even if we accept that as a given, we still have DirecTV threatening lawsuits based on statistical probability. You can't do that. You have to have proof. It doesnt matter if the person is guilty or innocent if they can't prove it.

Could someone point me to the EEF?

[n0cturnal79]

I have tryed to search for the EEF to no avail. Would someone kindly post a link for me? Thanks. I also found the lawyer that was mentioned in one of the posts, however he is not certified to be a lawyer in the state which i live. Thank you for the info though. I really didn't expect anyone to post to this, i appreciate the input you all have given, and look forward to future posts and any advice that anyone may have. My belief in good people is beginning coming back. Thanks.

Re:Could someone point me to the EEF?

[Scummer]

http://www.eff.org/

There you go! Good luck!

Not many will fight the $3500

[dnoyeb]

Insight is knowing that [generally] anyone with $$$, or principles wouldn't be buying such a device anyway. Seeing as how it will require 1 or both of those qualities to fight the case, DTV has a safe bet not many will.

Purchase Location

[rocca]

Keep in mind they are getting the purchasers names from the places they have raided, ie "pirate satellite operation stores" -- so they are going after Johny Sizpax with a card-programmer, not Mr. Unix X.509 Certificate Guru. I think if you had purchased one from a more "legitimate" source (which one would expect of a legitmate user) that you won't find a letter in your mailbox from DirecTV.

Baseless Lawsuit recourse

[danoatvulaw]

Yes you are correct, defending a baseless suit is time consuming and very expensive. That is why the federal rules of civil procedure provide rule 11, for just this kind of situation. If a lawyer files suit on behalf of a client that he knows does not have a case, he can be sanctioned and the plaintiff can be forced to compensate the defendant for their time and $$ spent. I too hope that directv gets taken to task for this, and i'm 2/3 of the way to being a lawyer!

danoatvulaw
3L Villanova Law

Re:Whatever you beam into my house and body is MIN

[jgoemat]

Actually in the US there is a law: ECPA

Re:I bet it costs them more money doing this than

[kfuq]

hehe.. i wonder how much the **AA has spent on their quest to make everyone criminals.

It's kind of interesting...

[kfuq]

It's kind of interesting to think how much of this shit has started since GWB started running the economy into the ground like an out of control airliner..

its crazy

[digtl88]

I think it is crazy that they request that much money. They should secure their services better if they do not want it stolen. I am not saying that people should not be penelized, but i think they are going beyond what is necessary.

off topic: foes list

[eugene ts wong]

I noticed today that I am on your freaks list. When did that happen? What brought about the decision? Or maybe I should ask, what did I say?