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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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....

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.

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!

[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.

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:

[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:

[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:

[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.

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

[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.

SmartCard Readers? They are suing..

[linuxislandsucks]

SmartCard readers? They are suing the DoD?

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!

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

-- Laura

i respond to you, because you are girl

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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....

[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....

[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: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

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....

[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....

[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....

[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....

[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....

[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....

[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: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: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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

[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!

[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.

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!

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..

[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..

[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: 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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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!

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.

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: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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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?

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.

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: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.

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: 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

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....

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[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

[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

[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]

Yep, if you're willing to face the abuse of process charges for the cases you lose, there's really nothing stopping you.

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.

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. =)

Let DirecTV know how you feel

[YetAnotherName]

DirecTV Feedback Page

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: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.

...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.

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?

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.

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.

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: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.

Constitution? What Constitution?

[r_j_prahad]

We don't need no steenking Constitution!

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.

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... :-/

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...

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)

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.

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!!!!

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.

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...

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.