Racketeering Suit Filed Against DirecTV

dki writes "Another attempt is being made to head off the lawsuits DirecTV has been filing against purchasers of smart-card programmers. This time, lawyers have filed suit under the mob-busting Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) federal organized crime statute, accusing DirecTV of organized extortion, money laundering and fraud. Background on the ongoing saga can be found here and here."

Comments

In other news...

[Sklivvz]

...said lawyers were brought away by a medical task force after they started drooling heavily. An eye witness reported that they showed all the symptoms of rabies, including a heavy dose of paranoia...

About time!

[Brahmastra]

I'm glad someone has had the balls to do this. DirecTV is yet another extortion corporation like SCO. Demanding money to not file a lawsuit seems to be in style these days. Before you realise it, the US government will make it legal for these scumbag corporations to do an anal probe on you and you will have to pay up if you want to avoid being anal probed.

Re:About time!

[Popsikle]

I agree, this may set a precedance. If this gets ruled in favor of consumers, where shall the RIAA stand?

Re:About time!

[Not_Wiggins]

Or even better yet...

From DirectTV: "We've noticed that you've been watching quite a lot of Skin-a-Max and have school-aged children. We know you're as interested as we are in preventing the exploitation of children, so please pay us the customary 'Certified Responsible Parent' registration fee of $1000, or we'll report this incident to the appropriate child welfare agencies for further investigation."

Re:About time!

[mkldev]

I think Drew Carey put it best with a line that was something along the lines of "I'd get [the porn channel], but I already get Disney, and if you get them both together, they put you on some kind of list."

Re:About time!

[seraph93]

Before you realise it, the US government will make it legal for these scumbag corporations to do an anal probe on you and you will have to pay up if you want to avoid being anal probed.

If it comes to that, then maybe we should get some people together and show these corporations what *real* extortion looks like.

"Awfully nice corporate headquarters you got here, Darl. It'd be a shame if something was to happen to it...wouldn't that be a shame, Louie?"

"Oh, yeah, boss. A real tragedy."

Re:About time!

[Anonymous Coward]

//start all caps// stop stealing satellite tv //end all caps//

"Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like Yelling." //start all caps// i was trying to yell //end all caps//

Re:About time!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right. To get on the list you have to be cross referenced by two databases. This is how IBM helped the Nazi's kill the Jews. This is how the Portland Police had the highest Pot growning arrest rates in the Nation. Its funny becasue its true (after a fasion.)

All you Geeks out there... you are the gate keepers of genocide and the police state. Don't forget it.

why i chose cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, yeah, cause comcast is the image of a squeaky clean corporation. except for the fact their extortion comes monthly in the mailbox instead of when you have a card writer.

theyre all scum, directv just happens to have the best programming and prices.

Re:why i chose cable?

[letxa2000]

They might all be scum, but I'd rather pay the "monthly extortion" of Comcast because I agreed up-front to it. I don't have DirectTV, Cable, or anything else. I don't even live in the U.S. right now. But one day when I move back to the United States I will definitely NOT be subscribing to DirectTV. They may have the best programming and best prices (someone else said that, I don't know that's true), but I'd rather pay a little more than fund a company that goes around suing innocent people and sees nothing wrong with that.

The whole concept of "sue 'em all, we think most of them are pirates" is the equivalent of nuking the Middle East as a solution to the Middle East problem. It might hit the bad apples, but if you end up hurting the innocent then it's unacceptable. That DirectTV engages in this practice even if they think the amount of collateral damage is "miniscule" should be prohibited.

If you have a case against an individual, sue them. If you don't, don't sue them. It's that simple. Anything else is an abuse of the legal system, and threatening to sue them is a threat to abuse the legal system unless extortion money is paid. I'm happy to see that they are being sued under RICO. Seems very appropriate.

Re:why i chose cable?

[Wingnut64]

The whole concept of "sue 'em all, we think most of them are pirates" is the equivalent of nuking the Middle East as a solution to the Middle East problem.

That, unfortunately, is not a good analogy to use on Americans. Too many people see to just not give a shit if a few (or even many) people get hurt if it solves someone's problems. Of course they'll do a 180 if it happens to them...

A blatant karma grab

[sjbe]

Everything you wanted to know about RICO.

Re:A blatant karma grab

[wembley]

Cool. Now I understand "The Sopranos".

Re:A blatant karma grab

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that I've got everything I wanted to know about RICO, can you post a link to everything I want to know about SUAVE?

Re:A blatant karma grab

[lspd]

Interesting.. The definition of racketeering includes things like "section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright)"

If I'm reading it correctly RICO makes it illegal to invest the proceeds of "racketeering" in any business which conducts interstate commerce. One could certainly argue that the directors of SCO are involved in a conspiracy to criminally infringe copyrights. They can't claim the GPL is invalid and continue distributing GPL'd software without infringing someone's copyright. They're also obviously investing some of the money back into SCO which does indeed conduct interstate commerce.

DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[whoppers]

Wait a second, can this be good? If this goes bad for DirecTV, I may be forced to watch more of their damned commercials! They already time them on all channels so you can't escape their commercials. On the good side, their menu system beats em all hands down.

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[doofus1]

On the good side, their menu system beats em all hands down.

Are you kidding me ??? My in-laws have direct TV, I'm not impressed. The (at least) basic programming
is practically nothing but eastcoast/westcoast public stations. The menu system on dish network is at least as good as on direct TV, plus you get a tuner in the menu so you don't have to stop watching TV in order to change the channel.

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You get a tuner on dish network also. But I am cancelling mine when my contract's up because satellite sucks (we had a pretty weak rainstorm and my dish went out) Even if I wanted to keep a satellite, I will cancel dish network because of the bullying lawsuits.

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[Suicyco]

The menu system is part of the receiver. I have all kinds of receivers and a DirecTivo as well, they all have different menus with many different formats. Some have a tv display, some dont, some offer more data, some offer limited screen real estate.

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[shepd]

>You get a tuner on dish network also. But I am cancelling mine when my contract's up because satellite sucks (we had a pretty weak rainstorm and my dish went out) Even if I wanted to keep a satellite, I will cancel dish network because of the bullying lawsuits.

Wow, that's too bad.

You do realize that satellite technology is far more reliable than even cable TV? That virtually all stations on cable TV, and often off air antenna, are fed from satellites?

You just needed a bigger dish. A 30" dish (permitted on any home by federal law in the USA) will receive the signal even if a fat kid stands infront of it.

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[mkldev]

Actually, the larger dishes for DSS produce a weaker signal because they use an almost identical surface area to bounce signals from three satellites instead of one. (Note that the small dishes with two satellites are probably worse than the large dishes with three, but I don't see many of those around.)

That having been said, if you really lose it in a "weak rainstorm", then your installer didn't do a very good job or you have something physically blocking the signal. In most parts of the U.S., you should get at least a 70% signal with a triple dish, 80% with a single (or thereabouts). Anything over a 30% signal or so should not result in dropouts, so there's a -large- margin, nearby tree limbs notwithstanding.

I've been through beating rain and high winds and my TiVo was recording at the time. I've only seen one single momentary outage (about a half second on the audio, a couple seconds for the video decoder to catch an I-frame) in two years. Of course, I mounted the dish myself (the free "professional" installer never contacted me, and after a couple of weeks, I said "screw them, I'll do it myself").

By contrast, back when I lived in Tennessee, most of the local stations were microwaved in for a stronger signal with shorter towers. With a slight wind, the towers would tip enough to drop the signal out constantly. Satellite channels were just about as bad.

The point is that if you want a solid signal, buy a dish (small, large, 30 foot uplink/downlink, whatever) and install it yourself so that you know it was done right. Mount it solidly into studs (or for a larger dish, concrete) using as many screws or bolts as possible, and you'll be much happier. :-)

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Actually, the larger dishes for DSS produce a weaker signal because they use an almost identical surface area to bounce signals from three satellites instead of one. (Note that the small dishes with two satellites are probably worse than the large dishes with three, but I don't see many of those around."

You're thinking of the multi-sat eliptical dishes, and yes, they do produce a weaker signal. The grandparent was describing a 30" round dish (which are available, you just have to look), which focuses signal from one satellite, and provides ~2.8 times more surface area than an 18" round dish.

I have a 20" eliptical dish (probably the worst dish to have), mounted directly into five studs with bolts (the dish is screwed into the wood and also screwed through two metal bars that screw into three more studs), but it does fine except for when it gets too much snow on it. Ice will also mess up the signal.

The spot beam satellites don't seem to drop out as easily, so during "rain fade" I normally just watch locals. It's a bummer when you're recording something, though, or when you can't acquire APG because your TiVo rebooted (hack gone wrong, usually).

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[Guppy06]

"If this goes bad for DirecTV, I may be forced to watch more of their damned commercials!"

If you paid attention to some of their commercials, you'd know that you could get a TiVo from them. I mean, if you don't want to see commercials, the answer is right there in front of you.

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[Guppy06]

"plus you get a tuner in the menu so you don't have to stop watching TV in order to change the channel."

Exactly how old is their equipment? I'm guessing about a decade, because I haven't seen a DirecTV tuner like that in a long time.

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[shepd]

>Actually, the larger dishes for DSS produce a weaker signal because they use an almost identical surface area to bounce signals from three satellites instead of one. (Note that the small dishes with two satellites are probably worse than the large dishes with three, but I don't see many of those around.)

No, I'm not talking about the ParaTodos dishes, or the Dish 500 systems. I really mean a 30" single LNBF dish (in my case, made by Winegard -- buy one from my store! ;-)

>In most parts of the U.S., you should get at least a 70% signal with a triple dish, 80% with a single (or thereabouts). Anything over a 30% signal or so should not result in dropouts, so there's a -large- margin, nearby tree limbs notwithstanding.

The question is, what is that in dB? Percentages are nice, but, being in percentages, that scale is probably linear, and horribly inaccurate to boot (it'll mix viterbi, error rate, and signal level into one). The difference between 30% and 70% looks like 50% but, depending on how they spread out the scale (there's no such thing as 100% signal, unless the IRD overloads at that point, which I would doubt), could be as little as 4% or 5% on a log scale.

I've peaked many dishes, and while an 18" dish, when peaked well, takes a downpour to kill the signal, it will still go during strong storms. A 30" dish really helps during the heavy snow we get at times in Canada. :-) Then again, the amount of signal you'll get depends on your location in regards to the satellite. Probably the best location in the northern hemisphere is the north of Texas for most satellites.

>The point is that if you want a solid signal, buy a dish (small, large, 30 foot uplink/downlink, whatever) and install it yourself so that you know it was done right. Mount it solidly into studs (or for a larger dish, concrete) using as many screws or bolts as possible, and you'll be much happier. :-)

Very true, very true.

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmm....microwaved fat kid...

(yes I know it's a receiver)

Re:DirecTV Subscriber here, this looks bad

[whoppers]

My beef is that I'm already paying directv, why do I (a paying customer) have to see more of their commercials. Anyways, I'm waiting for the dad-in-law to cough up his tivo when he ups to the hdtivo. Tivo'd shows look like crap on his 65" hdtv.

Thanks for bringing up SCO

[mhesseltine]

I was just wondering why SCO hasn't been sued under RICO. It's the same type of thing, isn't it?

1. You have our I.P.
2. We won't show you proof.
3. Give me $699 / instance

4. Of course, what logically follows is:

5. Profit!

Note the uncanny lack of a ??? step in this scheme.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Brahmastra]

If this case goes against DirecTV, I'm sure there will be multiple lawsuits against the RIAA and SCO. For example, the RIAA sent an extortion letter to a professor for having a perfectly legal file on his website, just because the filename looked suspicious. I'm sure there are multiple such cases, with all the extortion letters being churned out by SCO and RIAA lawyers. I hope a precedent is set and an end is put to this Big Corporation/Scummy Lawyer extortion alliance.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, the RIAA sent an extortion letter to a professor for having a perfectly legal file on his website, just because the filename looked suspicious

No, they sent a cease and desist request. DirecTV is mailing out demands for settlement.

Frankly I dont see how this case can happen legally. If you default on a loan enough, you'll get a letter from the collection agency along with a subpoena, you can either pay up or go to court. In a legal sense, this isn't much different.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Until SCO actually starts invoicing and suing for the $699, it's not the same thing.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[garrulous]

I'm thinking I'm going load up a bunch of public domain crap and change the file names to Britney Spears songs. Kill two birds with one stone. Piss off The RIAA and contribute my small part to the end of the proliferation of crap.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[shamino0]

If you default on a loan enough, you'll get a letter from the collection agency along with a subpoena, you can either pay up or go to court. In a legal sense, this isn't much different.

It's tremendously different. A collection agency has proof that you defaulted on a loan.

DirecTV has no proof that any of these people have committed any crime. No matter what they'd like to claim in press releases, purchase of a SmartCard programmer is not proof that you are stealing DirecTV broadcasts.

They are threatening expensive legal action without any proof of wrondoing, and they are demanding money to make the threats go away. Sounds like a clear cut case of racketeering and extortion.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[sribe]

It's tremendously different. A collection agency has proof that you defaulted on a loan.

I'm going to nitpick a bit. A collection agency does not in any legal (or real) sense have proof of anything. They only have a claim submitted by a company. Believe me, I know. Through some unhappy coincidences, I have had "debts" which I did not owe turned over to collection agencies 3 times in the past 2 years.

Now, happily for me, collection agencies are in business to collect money, not to go to court with losing cases (imagine that). So in each case a single quick letter to the agency explaining the circumstances made them go away (I'm sure it helps that I have really good credit). Actually, in one case I didn't even write a letter, I just took a red pen and wrote in big letters across the collection agency's letter "I paid these dumbasses when the bill was due" and stapled to it a copy of my canceled (6 months previous) check.

So what's my point? Collection agencies don't have proof. But when you are falsely accused of owing money, in my experience they behave perfectly reasonably. Probably at least in part because of regulations on the industry, not solely from common sense as I implied eariler ;-)

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[fm6]

I was just wondering why SCO hasn't been sued under RICO. It's the same type of thing, isn't it?

I think this is kind of different from previous RICO suits. The classic RICO case is where some gangster demands payments in exchange for "protecting" somebody from "accidents". That's been extended into situations where political extremists who have advocated violence have faced RICO suits by the victims of that violence. But you're still talking about intimidating somebody with illegal acts.

In this suit, they appear to be saying that misuse of the civil justice system is also a form of extortion. Well, in a moral sense, that's obviously true. But that doesn't mean that the courts will automatically agree that DirecTV and/or SCO are covered by the RICO statute. Whoever's backing this suit has to risk a lot of money on a legal theory that has yet to be proven.

If you think SCO deserves a RICO suit, go ahead and sue them. It's not cheap, though.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's tremendously different. A collection agency has proof that you defaulted on a loan.

Wrong!!!

Collection agencies often go on "fishing" expeditions when they can't find the exact person named on a deliquent account. You have 30 days to respond, and if you don't, they'll assume you're the one.

Everything else I can agree with. Yes, it's extortion. Can't they remotely check the settings on the box?

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[F34nor]

You have a third option with a collection agency. Becasue they are your employee (you pay them) you have the right to fire them. You can keep firing collection agencies for ever. Just fire them in the first 30 days and the owner of th debt will have to find a new one. If you can outlast the owner of the debt you can annoy them away.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[madcow_ucsb]

Can't they remotely check the settings on the box?

Only if you have it plugged into the phone line, which you'd have to be crazy to do if you're not paying for it.

If they ever were able to get a system where the boxes talk to the satellite, it'd be much harder for people to get away with it, but show me a satellite that can take data streams from thousands of customers and can stream hundreds of digital video/audio feeds at the same time...

Besides, then it'd just be a matter of hacking the data that gets returned to DTV in addition to the keys used in the box to determine if you're allowed to watch that ppv porn or not...

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

They are threatening expensive legal action without any proof of wrondoing, and they are demanding money to make the threats go away. Sounds like a clear cut case of racketeering and extortion.

Uhh, guess where they're getting their lists of names to sue? The police bust sellers of illegal descrambling equipment and DTV goes along and gets copies of receipts. It's not like they're randomly suing innocent people. I'm not saying their high-handed tactics are right (even though IAAL). The fact that corporations bribed our legislator into writing draconians laws that allow them to sue people for tens of thousands of dollars plus legal fees makes it nothing more than legalized extortion. Part of the problem is that they only have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you committed the alleged act and they've got you by the short and curlies.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[laosland]

What happens is someone has a hacked card and then someone takes that card and makes copies for other people. Then, of course, you have one idiot out of the 20 or so people decide to plug in their satellite box to the phone line and everyone who has a copy of the origonal card gets screwed (i.e. spiked).

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[stwrtpj]

So what's my point? Collection agencies don't have proof. But when you are falsely accused of owing money, in my experience they behave perfectly reasonably.

Huh. Not all of them. I remember the first apartment I had after I started working my first full time job. A few months after I had been living there, I started getting phone calls from a collection agency for someone that I had never heard of. They claimed this was the address they had for him. I patiently explained to them that I had only just moved in. Then they demanded (not asked, demanded) to know where he went, and I responded how the hell should I know and why should I care? FInally they actually accuse me of covering for this person and that I could be in legal shit if I keep doing it. At that point I lost it and told him in no uncertain terms that if I got so much as one more fucking phone call from them, I would report them to the Better Business Bureau and the state attorney general. I never got another call from them again.

Probably at least in part because of regulations on the industry,

Probably why they backed off after I told them off, when they realized they had someone who knew his rights under the law.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Note the uncanny lack of a ??? step in this scheme.

Only because you explained it wrong. I'd model it more like this:

1. You have our I.P., consisting of ???

2. Give us $699 or we might do ???

3. Profit! Or maybe an IBM buyout! Or ???

It's really the evolution of gnome business acumen - ??? in every step!

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

"proof" is sometimes the issue with collection agencies. Furthermore it is the tactics used that are the issue. The oft used claim by collection agency that you have 14 days to pay in full or [insert threat here] is not legal... in two ways. First of all, you are allowed by law 30 days notice. Many places are finally placing the burden of proof up receipt upon the collection agencies due to incompetence on their part or just lies (incompetence could be sending it to a wrong address, one that is years old, lies is well... lies that they sent it) Furthermore you are guaranteed the right to dispute it and I "THINK" that that adds another 30 to 60 days. (this has changed I think, so look it up online... the about.com debt payoff arena is great source of info and leads)

It is illegal to even CLAIM that you have less than 30 days as that is a scare tactic based on falsehood... extortion. The really sad thing is that while many deadbeats do exist there are also many who really want to pay their debts but are scared into hiding or fighting it. Credit card companies are notorious for their self damaging tactic of punishing those who after defaulting on a loan want to pay it off. These stay on your record for 5 years but that is 5 years after the collection agency "gives up" which could very well mean that they were sending you mail to somewhere you never lived or lived many moves ago (think College years). When that person grows up and decides to be responsible they face the prospect of not only lengthening the time that the report shows. What happens is that at the time of payment including complete payoff, the clock is reset.

Granted it is true that they have the credit card company has the power to completely remove the negative marks and thus leave the account as just a normal account... but sadly it usually takes a lawyer to actually get the company to agree in writing (i.e. contract) that if you pay by Y amount by X date that you will have no negative record.

Many have paid their balance only to discover that for 5 years they have that negative mark when had they not paid it would have already been gone (5 year mark passed).

Companies on the other hand have a great amount of leeway, especially with bankruptcy. A private individual would most likely not be able to declare bankruptcy and then sign off assets to relatives, liquidate others and buy more items and definitely not borrow more... but business does it regularly. This is what is wrong... the law, not the mere existence of corporations, capitalism, etc.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Felinoid]

There is a lawsute going on right now where a collection agency has sent letters to people who don't owe money.

In such cases a company clames to be owned money by people that had no contact with them.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason to get an unlisted/unpublished phone number..

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[FreakinHippie]

References?

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[Wolfrider]

I call bullshit. Post an example where this has EVER worked.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[canajin56]

This is very true! You can also get out of speeding tickets by firing the cop! And get out of paying for groceries by firing the cashier! Hell, you can even get out of murder by firing the judge! Of course, there will be a mistrial, but you can just fire the next judge, too. If you keep it up, they will get bored and leave you alone!

Oh wait, that is all completely wrong and stupid! My bad.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[jimbolaya]

Who cares if they get screwed, or spiked, or skewered for that matter. What they did was illegal, and is not germane to the racketeering lawsuit--that innocent (i.e., non criminals) were being sent extortion letters. I have no sympathy for idiots who commit crimes, who those who help the idiots.

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[stephanruby]

Wolfrider seems to be right. Here is what the Federal Trade Commission has to say about this.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fdc.htm

Can you stop a debt collector from contacting you?

You can stop a debt collector from contacting you by writing a letter to the collector telling them to stop. Once the collector receives your letter, they may not contact you again except to say there will be no further contact or to notify you that the debt collector or the creditor intends to take some specific action. Please note, however, that sending such a letter to a collector does not make the debt go away if you actually owe it. You could still be sued by the debt collector or your original creditor.

May a debt collector continue to contact you if you believe you do not owe money?

A collector may not contact you if, within 30 days after you receive the written notice, you send the collection agency a letter stating you do not owe money. However, a collector can renew collection activities if you are sent proof of the debt, such as a copy of a bill for the amount owed.

[...]

Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO

[shamino0]

Uhh, guess where they're getting their lists of names to sue? The police bust sellers of illegal descrambling equipment and DTV goes along and gets copies of receipts.

That's proof you bought a card programmer, not proof that you used it to steal DirecTV broadcasts.

There's a difference, even if DirecTV's legal department wants to pretend there isn't.

Erm..I hate to bring it up, but this is relevant..

[grasshoppa]

So why hasn't anyone brought suit against SCO for the same reasons?

RICO and the RIAA

[TheRealStyro]

So when are we going to see RICO lawsuits against the RIAA? The RIAA is a much bigger & badder target then DirecTV. However, in todays political climate of letting corporations walk all over us 'people' I doubt anything will come of this.

Re:RICO and the RIAA

[bladernr]

I could imagine it happening. Bringing a suit and winning a suit are entirely different things.

I'm not lawyer, but my understanding is that for RICO to apply, some crime has to be committed, and that crime has to be associated with the organization (although not a causation relationship).

For instance, if me and a bunch of people get together and plan, scheme, conspire, etc, to feed the homeless, there is no RICO claim. No crime is being committed.

If, while feeding the homeless, I suggest that some business is not treating me right, and the homeless people cause problems for that business, and I make a habit out of this, it starts looking a lot like a protection racket, hence RICO.

So, if the RIAA gets even more blatant, and starts saying, "Mr. Customer, I know you have not committed any crime, but if you do not give me cash, I will sue you anyway," that may incur RICO violations (because RIAA would be running a protection racket).

On the other hand, if RIAA can show that they made a "best effort" attempt at only going after lawbreakers, and left alone people that were clearly not breaking the law (my Mom with no Internet connection clearly is not d/l'ing music, so there is no reason to threaten to sue her), then I think they are safe.

Like I said, I'm no lawyer, so that is just my laymen's best understanding.

Re:RICO and the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, in todays political climate of letting corporations walk all over us 'people' I doubt anything will come of this."

Under the law of the land, corporations are people having legal status, allowing them to own property, have employees, make profit, have a say in our government through briber^H^H^H^H lobbyists, get on (corporate) wellfare, pay taxes (okay, scratch that), hence their being called "corporate citizens." How dare you put the needs of the many (our corporate citizens) ahead of the few (the people, specifically the little people, especially if they're brown). So what are you, some lefto pinkie commie bastard? You are a traitor to W's America!

Is this good?

[FreedomOfSpea-MMNnnf]

I mean there is a lot of harm that comes from the proliferation or raquets of mass destruction and all...

Background information links

[Anonymous Coward]

Please dont call previous slashdot articles "background information". This is not a news site, the articles are biased and often partially wrong or misleading, sometimes outright frauds.

Either A) have /. ed's show some actual journalistic skill and integrity, or B) don't cite yourselves as a source for information.

Re:Background information links

[adoll]

journalistic skill and integrity journalistic skill and integrity,

Why is it necessary to post this AC? At least /. is willing to announce their identity and withstand the flames. First step in integrity is allowing people associate your idea with you.

-AD

Re:Background information links

[rjey]

Hello DirectTV, who is Feeling the Joy now?

Re:Background information links

[rking]

This is not a news site, the articles are biased and often partially wrong or misleading

Sounds pretty much like the other news sites then, so what's your point?

Welcome !

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new PVR overlords, and look forward to endless hours of enjoyment watching those 4:00 AM infomercials I am too lazy to stay up for.

Dateline: Boston

[JavaSavant]

Irish Mob accuses DirectTV of copyright infringement over the use of extortion as a business practice...

Re:Dateline: Boston

[ncc74656]

Irish Mob accuses DirectTV of copyright infringement over the use of extortion as a business practice...

s/copyright/patent/g, perhaps? Extortion as a business practice sounds like a business-method patent the USPTO would issue...

Re:Dateline: Boston

[feyhunde]

The Irish Mob has sued Direct TV for 3 Billion dollars, while annoucing a licencing plan for users of "Extortion!" that will reportedly run $699 per hoodlum. SCO has reportedly become the first to settle with the Irish mob, giving them an undisclosed amount of money in order to end claims of improper use of Irish Mob IP in their business plans. No comment from Microsoft, but speculation is they may move to buy out the mob to head off any potential problems.

Hope this is sucessfu!...

[Pr0Hak]

DirecTV's tactics are downright despicable. They are preying on individuals solely on the basis of buying a potentially innocuous piece of computer hardware.

DirecTV is counting on the fact that those who they file suit against will either not have the legal resources to fight them, causing them to settle, or that the defendants will realize that a settlement will be better than a long, protracted, expensive court battle.

I personally have purchased smart card programmers before (not from 'satellite piracy' sites) for programming smart cards for authentication use in a home automation system. I really don't know what I would do if I were to face a DirecTV lawsuit. One the one hand, I would like to stand up to their bullying tactics, but on the other hand, I don't know that I would have the financial resources to do so.

This type of corporate bullying must be stopped!!!

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[dhwebb]

I am in the same situation. I've used smartcard programmers for authentication purposes with Windows 2000 networks. I would love to see DirecTV come after me. I wouldn't even hire a lawyer, because why should I waste a dime defending myself to these people. This is like the RIAA coming after me for buying a cd burner or for even having an internet connection. I mean give me a break. I think they have to prove I used the reader for programming DirecTV smartcards anyway. I think a judge would also be humored by this type of lawsuit anyway.

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[ryanwright]

I personally have purchased smart card programmers before (not from 'satellite piracy' sites) for programming smart cards for authentication use in a home automation system.

I just want to second this. I own two smart card programmers for exactly the same reason. I fiddled with them for awhile and decided not to use them for access control when I found iButtons were cheaper, stronger, and small enough to be built into a ring. I, too, have wondered what would happen if DirecTV decided they didn't like this and came after me. I didn't buy mine from "piratedirecttv.com", either, but it's still unsettling that I could become their next target.

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[mabhatter654]

Yeah, but they are targeting customers of specific companies that sold Smart-Card busting material. While there's some grey-market about it, the readers were flashed with a rom to break DirectTV card encryption--these aren't generic writers.

They should be acting in a bit better faith, but why? They could offer to buy-back the offending writers rather than sue.. i.e. "give us the writer or then we sue you" but why bother. DirectTV piracy is rampant. I've had more than one "average joe" hear that I was into computers and ask if I fixed DirectTV cards--People just assume it, but they know it's wrong too.

I think frankly, they should get their own custom cards for new boxes, change the shape with a notch or holes, and arrange them so that non-directtv smart cards will be damaged by trying to trim them, and the new ones won't work in normal readers because of pinouts or extra tabs that have to be broken off and electrically damage the card. But that sill leaves lots of recievers out there old-style and people can't keep stealing their service. And it is stealing because to get the decode you had to sign up for the service and to follow the rules.

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like to point out here that you, as a legit programmer, did not buy your card from a 'satellite piracy' site. Legit buyer buys from legit site. Got it.

For what purpose would one choose a 'satellite priacy' site for their purchase then, I do so wonder?

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[R0b5D1gs]

Price! They are also the first sites that come up when you Google.

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[letxa2000]

Yeah, but they are targeting customers of specific companies that sold Smart-Card busting material. While there's some grey-market about it, the readers were flashed with a rom to break DirectTV card encryption--these aren't generic writers.

I do a lot of work with microcontrollers and a few years ago I was fascinated by the possibilities of smart cards so I bought a device. It was the cheapest product that had the flexibility I wanted. I don't remember where I bought it, but the site did mention DSS. But what did I care? It was the cheapest option.

As far as I know these devices weren't sold with any ROM to do anything. In fact, they made it very clear that it was the responsibility of the customer to flash whatever ROM they wanted.

Basically, what I bought was the equivalent of a computer with a virgin, unpartitioned hard drive. I then installed Linux on it. Now Microsoft sends me a letter saying "Hey, you bought this thing and you could have installed an illegal copy of Windows on it. Give us $3500 or we'll sue you." It's exactly the same and just as asburd.

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[Anonymous Coward]

People just assume it, but they know it's wrong too.

I don't know it's wrong. I know it's illegal. Big difference.

I don't think it's wrong either. If they want to beam their signal through my house, body, and cat, then I should be able to receive and mung it in any way see fit, including via the receiver I bought (I'm assuming most people buy their receivers). If their business plan makes so little sense that it requires draconian law to prop it up, why should I be required to support it? May as well call it a basic service and make it illegal not to subscribe.

And it is stealing because to get the decode you had to sign up for the service and to follow the rules.

The one thing I can assure you it is not is stealing. This is a very well-understood term in society, and it refers to taking something from someone else without entitlement and thus depriving them of that something. You can steal service, perhaps (deprive someone of payment for services rendered), but that's not what's happening here. Again, they're beaming radio signals through my house. And why do I have to sign an agreement, enforceable or otherwise? Can't I get a dish, receiver, and smartcard programmer independent of this company (serious question)?

I don't have satellite TV service or cable and probably never will, because not only is the crap available not worth paying for, it's not worth wasting precious hours of my life to watch it. But if I did for some reason want to watch satellite TV, I'd probably set about buying or building the necessary hardware and programming it myself. I'd feel no moral compunction whatsoever, and can't particularly see how a person would be caught, particularly if they had no dealings with the company. Perhaps it's particularly easy for me to say that because I live in Canada, and it's unlikely there's anything they can do anyway. But it just baffles me why these companies can't focus on selling a good service to people who want to pay for it, and just ignore the minority who'd rather decode the signal themselves (undoubtedly forgoing many benefits of the subscription fee in the process, as is obviously their right).

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[Voltronalpha]

Well while I agree it's entirely asstastic of them to just up and point the finger at everyone it has been effective to some small degree, that is there is someone who bought the hardware and did use it for the reasons Direct TV Assumed and they modified thier behavior because how can they know what Direct TV does and does not know. For all they know Direct TV may have evidence, so for each of the people who did pirate they have to think about continuing it; I highly doubt they give a flying fuck about the money; they want to stop the people who program the cards and sell them; the people who bought them for entirely different reasons can raise thier hand as say hey you jerks I'm not a pirate; it's a hell of a lot harder to say that if you are in fact a pirate (because you are now a pirate and a liar.

It was naughty of them to file the lawsuits it would have been a crapton more efective for them if they had played the SC0 dance, but maybe more people are paying for this than I expect (I'd guess out of 9,000 less than 50 paid up) something tells me though those that did pay have paid for the expense of filing against everyone.

Anyway there is one way to stop this sort of behaviour and only one way because jus suing them isn't really going to stop it; it might stop this instance or that instance but the best course of actuon is Boycott, something I would think to be so much more effective in a capitolistic society, go fig the people don't exercise thier freedom of choice and don't care about making informed decisions of they are whores and don't care that they pay a company that does this kind of crap because they want thier Cable/Satilite/Internet/Telephone/Radio/(insert just about anything here) more

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[skywire]

I suggest you read up on the differences in required level of proof between civil and criminal cases. Generally, in civil suits, all that is necessary for the plaintiff to prevail is that he show that it is slightly more likely that you did what you are accused of than that you didn't. In other words, all the ancient principles of due process go out the window.

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[MegaFur]

Yeah, but what if they come after you and you don't defend yourself and you lose?

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the estimate is that around 10,000 *HAVE* paid up. DTV won't comment on these figures but it's a good estimate.

Also, the *ONLY* thing DTV cares about is the money. It's a known *FACT* that the cards can be shut off *permanently* remotely. They can shut off *EVERY* non subscribed card this way. They don't though...why? Well for one thing, by letting piracy run rampant it increases their installed base. Once they do stop piracy once and for all, a large number of the former pirates will subscribe to DTV. Why not? They've already got the equipment and they're used to it.

DTV wants one thing out of this...money.

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[fishbowl]

"They can shut off *EVERY* non subscribed card this way. They don't though...why?"

Could it be because advertising still works?

Or could it be that because a whole lot of people have DTV (legal or illegal), a lot more get exposed to it (and simply purchase it rather than jump through hoops?)

Re:Hope this is sucessfu!...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>People just assume it, but they know it's wrong
>>too.
>I don't know it's wrong. I know it's illegal.
>Big difference.

The only difference that matters here.

You want it to be legal. It isn't. That's all good until you become a target.

In Canada where you supposedly live, there is a specific legal protection for you. That won't protect a US vendor who sells to you though.

Want to extort somebody?

[McFly777]

The federal RICO case is by far the most ambitious legal counterattack DirecTV has faced, though it is similar to a lawsuit Wilens filed last year in Los Angeles, on behalf of some of the same clients, including Sosa. A county judge dismissed that case last April under a California law aimed at discouraging lawsuits that stifle constitutionally-protected activities. The judge ruled that DirecTV's letters were sent in connection with litigation, and were therefore privileged

So if I read this correctly, if you want to extort somebody in California, you just have to make sure that the threat is one of being sued. That way your extortion threat is "in connection with litigation" and therefore "constitutionally-protected."

Absolutely amazing. I am glad I don't live in California. (Of course I am not sure that Michigan is any better, with the Super-DMCA laws here.)

Re:Want to extort somebody?

[Kaenneth]

it makes perfect sense.

how else can a settlement offer be made?

Re:Want to extort somebody?

[notcreative]

MOBSTER: Give me what's in the till or I'll beat the crap out of you, wreck up the place, and sue you for hurting my knuckles. And Legs here will sue ya for emotional distress.

LEGS: *sobs quietly*

Re:Want to extort somebody?

[poot_rootbeer]

So if I read this correctly, if you want to extort somebody in California, you just have to make sure that the threat is one of being sued. That way your extortion threat is "in connection with litigation" and therefore "constitutionally-protected."

As it should be.

"We believe you have wronged us, pay us or we'll ask the court to confirm your obligation to pay us" is okay.

"Pay us now or we'll break your kneecaps" is unequivocally extortion.

Filing a lawsuit (at least, filing a lawsuit with merit) is not a punitive action.

Re:Want to extort somebody?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there are OTHER reasons not to live in California you know... I'd mention them, but I'm too busy dodging them right now...

Re:Want to extort somebody?

[Dun Malg]

Filing a lawsuit (at least, filing a lawsuit with merit) is not a punitive action.

But the whole crux of the matter is the "lawsuit with merit" aspect then, isn't it. Mass-mailing threats of legal action with only the weakest of circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing is a little too close to barratry for comfort.

SCO was more careful (so far)

[siskbc]

I was just wondering why SCO hasn't been sued under RICO. It's the same type of thing, isn't it?

So far....not quite. First, SCO hasn't actually approached any customers, though they've blustered that they might. So your first problem is, who's the plaintiff in this theoretical case? Second, they don't offer a settlement, they offer licensing - and amnesty from something (a possible suit) that hasn't even been established yet.

Yes, it's a fine line, but SCO's dancing it pretty well.

Re:SCO was more careful (so far)

[Anonymous Coward]

If the mob threaten to firebomb your neighborhood everyone in your neighborhood is a RICO plaintif. You could actually say the mafia has done a bigger job against itself by failing to target just one plaintiff; they now face multiple parties.

Same holds true against SCO... by threatening such action they are in effect extorting all businesses that participate in, profit from, or utilize affected IP. This means any affected business is a potential plaintiff, and all the plaintifs need to do is show that the threat of extortion by SCO has affected their business.

-rt

Re:SCO was more careful (so far)

[stwrtpj]

First, SCO hasn't actually approached any customers, though they've blustered that they might. So your first problem is, who's the plaintiff in this theoretical case? Second, they don't offer a settlement, they offer licensing - and amnesty from something (a possible suit) that hasn't even been established yet.

I have to wonder if SCO came very close to inviting a RICO suit. Recall that initially that blatantly stated they would pursue litigation againt commercial users. Now this has been downgraded to "invoices". If these "invoices" carry no explicit litigation threat, then they can't be sued under RICO. They could possibly be sued for fraud, but not racketeering. Not yet. Suing under RICO cannot be done lightly.

In other words, it sounds like someone over there finally got Darth McBride and his minions to shut their traps and play their cards closer to the vest.

Re:SCO was more careful (so far)

[dafoomie]

They've contacted customers offering licences for "protection" against any legal action.

"Thats a real nice operating system you've got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it."

Though I do agree a RICO suit may not be appropriate for SCO, but legal action is definitely in order (against SCO).

Who needs AP or Reuters?

[Faust7]

DirecTV is facing growing criticism over the campaign after targeting some innocent techies who had perfectly legal uses for the equipment they purchased.

Well, at least it's an unbiased article. :-)

Re:Who needs AP or Reuters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least your comment is unbiased. :-)

I can't decode your sarcasm, but I think you are calling the article biased. Yet, the next line after the one you quote is says, "The company says the number of non-pirates swept into their dragnet is minuscule".

The company admits the statement you call biased is true. Or did you mean to say there have been a lot of biased articles before. There have been many that act as if no innocent people have been threatened.

goddamit

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be patent, not copyright. Sheesh, the trolls these days...

It's interesting...

[dspyder]

I'm glad somebody is taking them to task and filing lawsuits to at least slow them down a little..... but realistically it's not a bad deal.

You can get the equipment to watch all the TV (read: porn) you want for a mere $3500....

The RIAA wants $15,000 for one measly song. Although you can theoretically listen to it indefinitely.

Although for around 700 bucks you can pick up a Linux license... fun for hours (and that's just the install process)

--D

p.s. I pay my DirecTV bill. It ain't that bad and I'm happy to be off cable!!!

Re:It's interesting...

[stwrtpj]

You can get the equipment to watch all the TV (read: porn) you want for a mere $3500....
The RIAA wants $15,000 for one measly song. Although you can theoretically listen to it indefinitely.
Although for around 700 bucks you can pick up a Linux license... fun for hours (and that's just the install process)

Seeing the heads of DirecTV, RIAA, and SCO up against the wall when the revolution comes: Priceless.

Re:It's interesting...

[Alsee]

The RIAA wants $15,000 for one measly song.

You missed a zero there, they sue for $150,000 per song. Perhaps you missed the case where the RIAA sued a college student for $97.8 billion?

No, that is not a typo, B as in Billion.

-

'Scuse me for being a pessimist...

[Asprin]

...but if that was going to work, I would think that someone would have already tried it against:

1. Microsoft
2. Credit card companies
3. The Phone Company (ALL of them - local AND long distance)
4. Cowboy Neal -- why should HE have a monopoly on irrelevance?

Time to switch back to cable

[trolman]

It is the Lawyers that win in the end and not even the corporations get much benifit. It is all about the money...for the lawyers.

Re:Time to switch back to cable

[Zork the Almighty]

DING! DING! DING! - We have a winner ! It's called job security : convince management that what you do is of primary importance to the health of the company.

I, for one,

[Anonymous Coward]

..welcome our new "In Soviet Russia" Direct TV Overlords.

It'll fail...

[Kjella]

I'm glad someone has had the balls to do this. DirecTV is yet another extortion corporation like SCO. Demanding money to not file a lawsuit seems to be in style these days.

Providing a settlement offer before filing a civil suit may be in style, but by itself it won't qualify as extortion or racketeering. If they do have a case, it is a legitimate offer to end it without lawyer's fees and court costs. If they don't have a case, simply refuse the offer and see them in court (if they at all try).

If going to court is such a terrible thing that is makes you feel extorted or racketeered, maybe a review of the legal system is in order instead. After all, it was made specifically to resolve legal disputes and is where it should end up if no acceptable compromise can be reached.

Kjella

Re:It'll fail...

[grunteled]

Except that the basic cost is 8 to 10K to take it to Federal Court, that's if you win. Loose (or get out-motioned) and it could be astronomical. I'm sorry but individually the letters might have merrit but when you take a "threaten everyone and let god sort 'em out" stance with no reguard to the financial harm to innocent people there is something wrong with that. 10K to DTV may be easy to sneer at, but to someone who works for $60,000 a year, the cost to defend an unverified law-rape is pretty staggering.

The comment that It's just a few innocent people here and there is outrageous to me. One or two people forced into paying $3500 with no evidence they actually stole anything is unacceptable. If that's what the legal system allows for then it does need an awfully big overhaul.

Re:It'll fail...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the court system was made to resolve disputes doesn't make it a perfect system. I don't know if you've been to court lately but it's a humbling experience, that can make one feel extorted.

Re:It'll fail...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment shows lack of understanding. A lawsuit is often very expensive, and can be drawn out very easilier if you have deep pockets. The case may have no merits, but many people may not have the funds to see it to the end.

Essentially, it's an imbalance of power. A company comes to you and says: pays us or we will take you to court and bankrupt you, even though you are in the right.

Sounds like: give us money for no reason or we will cause you unjustified pain.

Sounds like extortion to me.

Re:It'll fail...

[Alien Being]

"If they don't have a case, simply refuse the offer and see them in court (if they at all try)."

It's like the schoolyard bully who threatens to beat you up if you don't give him your lunch money.

You can give him your lunch money; you lose, he becomes even more brazen. You can tell him no; you get beaten up and have your lunch money stolen. You can give your money to someone else to *try* to protect you; your money's gone and you might still get clobbered. Or you can join forces with others who are in the same boat and teach the bully a lesson. Sometimes, the best defense is a good offense.

Not only do I hope they send a strong message to DirecTV, I hope DirecTV's legal staff faces some consequences with the bar association.

Re:It'll fail...

[geoff2]

That's all true -- there is a signficiant imbalance of power. But that's the way our legal system has worked since the beginning. If one party thinks another party is causing some kind of legal injury -- by hitting him, by defrauding him, or by stealing his property -- then the remedy is to file a civil lawsuit.

DirecTV apparently believes that these folks are stealing their service. They have every right to file a lawsuit, so long as they have what they think is good reason to think that these people are stealing their services. And, if they don't have a good reason, the legal system providse procedures for imposing penalties on parties who file frivolous lawsuits, as well as reimbursing the costs of persons who are targets of frivolous lawsuits.

Now, you seem to have a problem with these letters. But, surely DirecTV has every right to simply go ahead and file civil lawsuits, thus requiring the targeted party to file the appropriate responses in court. What about sending the demand letter? if someone is engaging in illegal activity, this is certainly a reasonably time- and cost-efficient way to resolve the matter. If someone is *not* engaging in illegal activity, they can fight it out in court, which would be their option even if the letters never were sent. Therefore, it doesn't seem these letters change anything, except it makes it easier for wrongdoers to resolve their cases. Maybe that's somehow unfair, but I don't see how this qualifies as extortion. Heck, if you're innocent, you can just go ahead and ignore the letters; then it's as if you never received them, and you'll be sued.

If DirecTV honestly believes these people are stealing its service, and you think it's wrong for them to send these letters to people who claim innocence, what do you think they should do?

Re:It'll fail...

[LoadWB]

Buddy of mine got such a visit; they threatened to arrest him at work and everything. He works in a security sensitive environment, so getting arrested would have cost him his job.

I set him up with a lawyer and everything, ready to fight. Instead he takes out a $10k loan... and the phuqrs (DirecTV) never called back. So, he went on vacation.

Re:It'll fail...

[Alien Being]

"So, he went on vacation."

He probably needed one.

Re:It'll fail...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Except that the basic cost is 8 to 10K to take it to Federal Court."

The numbers you pulled out of your ass are probably accurate for legal defenses where you hire an attorney and pay someone to take care of every service for you.

Go to trial in forma pauperis, represent yourself, insist on process on EVERYTHING, and never waive one single right, even the smallest item. Especially, never waive the right to a jury at every hearing. And have a hearing on EVERYTHING.

Most of the money spent fighting a lawsuit is discretionary, not mandatory. See, there's no law that says you have to hire a lawyer to speak for you, and it's only an assumption that people make, that the lawyer can do a better job of defending your interests than you can personally.

Law is not written in hieroglyphics or in Navajo, or even in latin (mostly). If the law is on your side, and you don't have millions to lose, why go bankrupt trying to play bigshot defending a lawsuit?

File every document. Never waive any rights to process WHATSOEVER. Have a jury hear every word of the evidence. Do everything on time, always have all your documents in order, and never yell at the plaintiff like you're on judge judy, and you should do just as well as if you hired a $1000/hour lawyer.

You care about your case, and all the lawyer cares about is all the money you don't have to pay him with.

Re:It'll fail...

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to enjoy throwing a helpless attitude about litigation, but the truth is, if your case is so clear, it doesn't have to involve more than showing up to your hearing with your evidence.

You don't have to go bankrupt paying lawyers just because someone sues you.

The costs of litigation increase exponentially when the defensive side isn't as sqeaky clean and innocent as they want the court to believe.

If you are rich, and have a lot to lose, you might be wise to let your lawyers take an aggressive defense for you.

If you are NOT rich, and have NOTHING to lose, you have a golden opportunity to make a plaintiff slog through a hellish process just to press a lawsuit against you -- which they won't do because they have NOTHING to gain from you, obviously.

On the other hand, if you hire an expensive lawyer to defend your case, what do you think is gonna happen? Your lawyer, after his own interests, is going to make that lawsuit take as long as possible and cost as much as possible!

All you really have to do is show up at hearings, file motions at the appropriate times, and never waive any rights to process. (NONE. They will be asking you to waive everything, and often.)

Never allow a hearing without a jury. That means, not one single piece of evidence is considered that hasn't been presented to a jury. And that means a whole lot of "evidence" isn't.

If you stand your ground, and insist on process, and if you are a small fish, they won't bother. And you won't go bankrupt over it, as if you had a fortune to lose in the first place!

Now the truth is, a lot of people bought smart card programmers in order to descramble tv signals. And some of them are being sued. And guess what? Defending against that suit won't fall under the same category as, let's say, a security company that happens to use the same device for some vertical application.

Imagine showing up with all the evidence of what you do with the product. The evidence that DTV folks have only SUPPORTS your position! "Yes, we use this technology for x, and purchase it from vendor z."

It's all moot. People don't actually get to the inside of a courtroom when the case against them is that weak. More likely, you're in the dark gray area ("I used my card to descramble TV signals, but I don't think the laws against that apply to me because..." or, "It's not my business whether the people buying these cards and programmers from me are using them for purposes that DTV says are a violation of civil law...")

If you're anywhere near the gray area, then damn straight, you should consider settling when you get the chance.

Re:It'll fail...

[Qzukk]

Do everything on time, always have all your documents in order

You do realize that this is the kind of thing people hire lawyers for, right? You don't get to ask for a recess while you flip through a 1000 page book to see just what you're supposed to be saying.

I don't believe you.

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporation is trying to get money from individuals through threats of litigation? And this is being covered on SLASHDOT?

Re:If copyright were abolished, no problem.

[AnusesCheeses]

This has nothing to do with any 'right' to take DirecTV's content for free, you idiot.

This has to do with DirecTV presuming that anyone with SmartCard hardware is trying to program cards to bootleg DirecTV content. There are plenty of legit reasons for having this kind of equipment. It doesnt matter if you can prove it, it is cheaper to settle than to go through court costs of these lawsuits.

Re:Erm..I hate to bring it up, but this is relevan

[Anonymous Coward]

--
I owe most of my karma to SCO

because if we did your karma would be very low, and we like to keep the grasshoppa happy.

Re:Erm..I hate to bring it up, but this is relevan

[MO!]

As someone posted above, SCO hasn't actually sent the bills they claim they're going to. Once they actually send invoices to people for something those people never purchased, intended to purchase, or agreed to purchase, then those people can persue legal action. This may include RICO, Mail Fraud, or other charges. The problem is that SCO keeps saying "We're gonna real soon now..." but still hasn't done anything other than talk the talk.

Racketeer

[Eberlin]

DirecTV is playing reruns of The Rocketeer? Hell yeah they should be sued -- that's a crime against humanity, damn it!!!

Re:Racketeer

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing with Jennifer Connelly in it is all bad.

What Would You Do?

[notcreative]

I agree that it is wrong (so very, very wrong) to extort money out of people by mass mailing settlement demands. Someone brought up the point, though: How else would a settlement be offered?

In other words, if we disallow this behaviour, what are we going to allow? What would you do if you had a large group of people that you needed to engage in a civil suit? I'm very interested in the ideas of the /. community, since a lot of these posts are going to be "boo-yah" kind instead of the "suggestion" kind.

Re:What Would You Do?

[codefool]

It should be done on a case-by-case basis. DirectTV should have to painstakingly research and determine and prove that an individual is using said equipment to damage them by stealing satellite. The burdon of proof should rest solely on the shoulders of DirectTV.

What infuriates me most about this, is that the three persons pressing the suit were not doing anything at all with satellite television, but yet settled to "avoid costly litigation." Is this the new Great American Business Model? This is not unlike what SCO is attempting to do - use the sheer weight of a threatened suit to extort money out of those who reason that it's easier to just pay up rather than fight the injustice. The injustice being that they shouldn't have to defnd themselves against baseless charges. Where is DirectTV's proof? Simply because they bought a piece of equipment from someone who also sells to pirates? This is guilt by association and unethical. It's like saying that I'm guilty of theft because I shop at Wal-Mart where many theives buy their stocking masks. Give me a break.

Re:What Would You Do?

[notcreative]

The burdon of proof should rest solely on the shoulders of DirectTV.

The burden of proof is already on DirectTV's "shoulders," the problem is that the average person can't pay for a lawyer to sit in the courtroom for two years while the civil suit plays out, regardless of guilt or innocence. The problem isn't that there's no presumption of innocence. The problem is that our legal system is so difficult and costly that the average person can't defend themselves against the bottomless pockets of a litigant. How do we fix that?

Re:What Would You Do?

[LineNoiz]

boo-yah!

Re:What Would You Do?

[El]

The problem is, 1) they're using a legal solution to solve a problem much more easily solved by a technical solution, and 2) they don't care who they hurt in the process. Basically, they're saying: "We designed our products to use off-the-shelf components to make it cheaper. Now how to we legally prevent everybody else in the world from using those same components?"

Re:What Would You Do?

[codefool]

Ah, yes, there's the rub. The burdon of proof rests with DirectTV's when the case goes to hearing/trial. DirectTV should have to prove their prima faci case before a judge allows them to even serve papers on something like this. This is not the case, but as I think we've seen, there are those who will abuse the system (SCO, $cientologi$t$) to damage an enemy rather than to seek justice.

Also, there should be English Rule in this country - loser pays. Then we'd see a dramatic decrease in the number of suits filed - that being no suit would be filed unless is was certain to be successful. That would, however, also decrease the incomes of most of the trial lawyers in this country, and since most of the congressmen are trial lawyers, we have just about as much chance of passing English Rule as passing tort reform.

They Know They're Crooked Too..

[the_mad_poster]

The company says the number of non-pirates swept into their dragnet is minuscule...

That's totally fucking irrelevant assuming it's even true.

If they're hitting ANY non-pirates in their "dragnet", why the hell aren't they checking this stuff out before they send extortion letters?

So, not only are we supposed to accept that DirecTV is trying to act as both the executive and judicial branches of government by both serving the warrants and imposing a judgement in the form of a 3500.00 "fine", we're also supposed to say it's OK that they're arbitrary shooting is hitting innocent bystanders because they get the right target MOST of the time?

Jeezisfuckinchrist.... how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[Anonymous Coward]

how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

Welcome to America. You must be new here.

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[poot_rootbeer]

So, not only are we supposed to accept that DirecTV is trying to act as both the executive and judicial branches of government by both serving the warrants and imposing a judgement in the form of a 3500.00 "fine"

NO.

If you think you're not guilty of what DirecTV accuses you of, you reject the "fine" [sic] and go to court and argue your case there. Try rejecting an actual court decision like that -- you'll be jailed like you were an Alabama Chief Justice.

This is nothing like what you say it is.

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

A little over three years ago, by my reconing..

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeezisfuckinchrist.... how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

Approximately negative 2.66 years.

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[mkldev]

...how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

Are negative time values legal?

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[glassesmonkey]

how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it...

I believe the answer you are looking for is the Presidential Election of 2000

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[the_mad_poster]

You've obviously never been sued....

Let me explain to you how it works (I'm not being condescending, just making a point):

You go to court and get a lawyer. The company sends 3. You want to just go up and say "look... I didn't do anything, prove it" knowing they can't prove it.

The company just keeps throwing out delay tactics while your bills add up. Eventually, you have no choice but to go bankrupt or settle to end the case.

The company gets money, you get screwed, and they also get a little PR to parade around to the public. If the lawyers are real slick and they finagle a win, they also get the start of a precedent.

The American justice system at work...

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[91degrees]

Indeed. That's a naive way of doing things.

In practice, what you do is make a public appeal for funds, figuring that a lot of other people will see that investing in your defense is a good investment. You then make yourself out to be the victim as much as possible, and see if you can get some support from rival companies.

It will be interesting to see the argument when someone eventually goes to court. There are clear alternative uses for this technology. DirectTV's only possible argument that I can think of is that they were advertised as a mechanism for breaching copyright. They would have to demonstrate that these devices were probably used for this purpose and that DirectTV suffered a loss as a result.

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[Cyno]

how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

You mean its not a completely corporate-run state today? How many representatives and cabinet members are execs or CEOs within corporations?

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[Reziac]

I'm wondering what happens if DirecTV attempts to extort someone who bought one of these devices, but has never been a DirecTV customer? Would the average court be sane enough to simply throw out DirecTV's case?

[Come to think of it, wasn't one of the research types who settled in this very situation??]

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[mindstrm]

What would be better is if they turned around and fined DirecTV severely for filing the bogus suit in the first place without enough evidence.

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[Reziac]

Say, a fine of three times the amount collected by DirecTV so far ... oh dear, they'd have to open their books. Betcha there are other "interesting" things to be found while we're looking...

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to be a customer to do this though. You can get the equipment from lots of places without a contract. All you really need (actually as of recently you *DONT* need this due to some recent uses of old findings) is a copy of someone's card to put on your card

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[fishbowl]

>A little over three years ago, by my reconing..

At least since the Carter administration, by mine.

Re:They Know They're Crooked Too..

[fishbowl]

>This is nothing like what you say it is.

It's too bad that most of the people named as defendants are guilty. They want to be found not guilty because of a loophole in a gray area, but not because they are innocent.

If the truth was closer to being "more people bought these cards for other things than television hacking", the suits would be very interesting, and might even end up with DTV being liquidated and their suits going into prison.

But the truth is, people were buying the cards because they wanted free tv.

Now maybe ethically they were entitled to it, and maybe eventually, the law will say so as well.

That doesn't change the situation for anyone who is being targeted here.

Wishful thinking is not going to change the fact that you bought a card programmer so you could watch DTV without paying, regardless of whether the card programmer has other uses. What's going to matter is that you did use the programmer to watch DTV without paying, that was illegal when you did it, and the plaintiff has more evidence to support his position than you have to support yours.

Trust me, this is not going to come to court with 99 of 100 people having evidence that they used these prgrammers for something besides DTV.

And I think you geeks know that.

You're a geek right, and you run in geek circles? Count the living rooms with paid-for, 100% square with the DTV agreements DTV.

Now count the living rooms with any variety of hacked H card or whatever they do these days.

Bet you know more people who don't pay, than do.

I certainly do, and not just geek houses either.
The hacked DTV thing appears to be quite popular among jocks. Sports fans. That's what TV is all about, and why it's so easy for me to do without it I guess.

Tuner used is very important

[silas_moeckel]

It's all about the tuner you use those junk ones that direct tv sells directy are just that junk for the same price you can get a somewhat better RCA moddel with more responsive functions and picture in a window while using the guide. Persoanly spend a couple hundred and get a direct tivo the signal is not degraded like normal Tivo replay tv etc and thats makes a huge difference on larger and or clearer tv's. Granted you have the digital artifacts thats just the fact of life. Someday they will move to a better mpeg like 4 without reducing the bitrates to much.

Re:Tuner used is very important

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know who I am? I don't think we've been introduced. I'm the comma. You put me in certain places in your sentances to make them more legible to others. Of course, you don't have to use me, but I am here for you. I also have the added benefit of not making you look like a moron.

Once you get to know me a little better, maybe I'll introduce you to my friend, the period. You seem to have a rudimentary association with him, but once you are in good with me, maybe he'll come around more often.

Re:Tuner used is very important

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi; I'm the semicolon. I'm like a semi truck driving through your colon. ;;;;;;;;;;

A semi truck through your colon is also zomburrito.

DirectTV as The Godfather

[segment]

"Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!"

RICO? Please

new Smart Card

[RocketRay]

Last week DirecTV sent me a new Smart Card, saying it was an important update or some such nonsense. But the card has a nasty EULA saying you can't reverse engineer, disassemble, etc. or look at it for too long.

So the card is sitting next to the box waiting for the old card to stop working. Hasn't yet.

Re:new Smart Card

[bitflip]

I went through the same thing (only procrastinating rather than protesting). Eventually, I started getting a nag at the bottom of my screen on all channels telling me to use the new card if I wanted to keep watching. That ran for about two weeks before I switched it over.

Would it have turned off? I don't know, but I did get sick of that stupid nag...

Re:new Smart Card

[Sean Johnson]

It will quit 20 days after having the new card mailed to you. Depending on the period of card it is, it will cease to function without the new one to replace it.

Re:new Smart Card

[dspyder]

You never received it... call and complain about the nag when you get it, they'll fedex you a new card right away.

Don't throw out the old card when you're done either. Not that you'll use it for anything, but you never know...

--D

Re:new Smart Card

[Powercntrl]

Sell your old card on ebay... If it's the HU type with the football player on the front, you can get $75 for it. I sold all 3 of mine.

I love DirectTV access card swaps, it's like getting a rebate when I sell the old cards on eBay.

Re:new Smart Card

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you a customer from them ?

Why are you giving them money ?

Why don't you just cancel the service ?

I am mind-blowed by people that have such weak conviction.

You don't like the suit, but you don't care because it is not against you.

You don't like the EULA, but you don't care because the old card works (and, of course, when it'll stop working you'll use the new nasty one).

Jesusfuckingchrist, CANCEL THE DIRECTV SERVICE.

YOU CAN LIVE WITHOUT IT.

Re:new Smart Card

[Anonymous Coward]

All I take from your post is that you continue to do business with these people.

You seem smug that you haven't agreed to the EULA.

But by staying in a business agreement with them, you are tacitly supporting their actions. You and the millions of others who keep them in business.

Re:new Smart Card

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would it have turned off? I don't know, but I did get sick of that stupid nag... "

If you still have the old card, just download some 3M bin's from a DSS site and slap it on to your HU card for some great television

You'll need a HU loader, but make sure you don't buy it from a site that Dave is watching...

iButton

[phorm]

Can you provide a little more info on these iButtons? Perhaps a link or website of a decent supplier (one who'll ship to Canada)?

Re:iButton

[windex82]

http://www.ibutton.com/

and just incase more ppl actually follow in story links then i belive ill mirror some basic info from the site:

What is an iButton?
The iButton(R) is a computer chip enclosed in a 16mm stainless steel can. Because of this unique and durable stainless steel can, up-to-date information can travel with a person or object anywhere they go. The steel button can be mounted virtually anywhere because it is rugged enough to withstand harsh environments, indoors or outdoors. It is durable enough to attach to a key fob, ring, watch, or other personal items and used daily for applications such as access control to buildings and computers.

iButton Components

The Can and Grommet
All iButtons use their stainless steel "Can" for their electronic communications interface. Each "Can" has a data contact which is called the "Lid" and a ground contact which is called the "Base". Each of these contacts is connected to the silicon chip inside. The "Lid" is the top of the "Can" and the "Base" forms the sides and the bottom of the "Can" and includes a flange for easily attaching the button to just about anything. The two contacts are separated by a polypropylene grommet.

The 1-Wire Interface
By simply touching each of the two contacts you can communicate to any of the iButtons by using our 1-Wire(R) protocol. The 1-Wire interface has two communication speeds. Standard mode at 16kbps and overdrive mode at 142kbps. See App. Note 74 for all 1-Wire Interface details.

The Address
Each iButton has a unique and unalterable address that is laser etched onto its chip inside the can. The address can be used as a key or identifier for each iButton.
2700000095C33108

From these basics we have expanded the iButton product line into over 20 different products by adding different functionality to the basic button. iButtons come in the following different varieties.

Re:iButton

[SillySlashdotName]

I don't know about the shipping to Canada part, but try this www.ibutton.com as a source.

Why is this modded as "Funny"?

[Archangel Michael]

This is just one of the newest in a long line of Slashtrolls. "I, for one, welcome out new **** Overloards ..." is a Troll! Stop modding such tripe as anything other that Troll!

Previous examples are:

All your bases .....
Imagine a Beo ......
In Soviet Russia ...

The First one is funny, but after that they get trolled so often that it is not funny, and even ruins the first one.

If you are going to Troll, at least be original! I only wish I could meta moderate the Trolls who Mod this type of drivel.

Re:Why is this modded as "Funny"?

[Anonymous Coward]

This explains why Anderson Cooper sucks so much.

All your base belong to Anderson Cooper.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Anderson Coopers!

In Soviet Russia Anderson Cooper shuts down you!

Anderson Cooper is dying! Anderson Cooper is dying!!

Re:Why is this modded as "Funny"?

[Anonymous Coward]

all your troll are belong to MY PENIS

Dateline: Utah!

[daniel_yokomiso]

SCO sues Irish Mob, DirectTV and The Sopranos of IP theft over the use of extortion as a business practice. Darl is also sending two invoices of U$699.00 to JavaSavant for using SCO's trademarks, "copyright infringement" and "extortion as a business practice".

Need the loser to pay

[adoll]

If going to court is such a terrible thing

It is if it bankrupts you, in spite of the minor fact that you won. What is needed is a clear signal that the loser will pay the winner's costs. I wonder if the litigants are going to forego an award of costs due to the charge of 'fraud' (see 2.b) in their action?

-AD

Re:Need the loser to pay

[SoSueMe]

That is what I'd like to see in this case.

"If you own or operate an e-commerce web site then you are us. And you need
to know that a company in San Diego, Pangea Intellectual Properties (PanIP LLC) is suing
companies all across the country. They claim that if you use graphical and textual information on a video screen for purposes of making a sale, then you are infringing on their patent. US Patent No 5,576,951.
And if you accept information to conduct automatic financial transactions via a telephone line & video screen, you're infringing on their patent. US Patent No. 6,289,319"

Re:Need the loser to pay

[DeepRedux]

While the loser does not always have to pay the winner's legal fees, in the right circumstances they can be ordered to pay. In fact the same group that filed this suit, tried to sue DirectTV for extortion in state court. They lost and were ordered to pay DirectTV's legal costs of $97,222.10.

DirectTV was able to use CA's anti-SLAPP statute to have the case thrown out without a trial. Demand letters are protected communications, not extortion.

It is interesting how the roles are reversed here. Normally an anti-SLAPP law is used to protect an individual from a large corporation, but here it is needed to protect DirectTV's rights.

big tits!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jennifer Connoly Has big tits!

Anderson Cooper drools over Jennifer Connoly's big tits, but he still sucks.

Re:...but but but...

[interstellar_donkey]

All those shows can be found on competetors like Dish Network (which I guess is sort of Direct TV now) or digital cable.

I need my direct TV because they are the only ones running Sunday ticket through what is, while not illegal, is certianlly an immoral non competitive agreement with the NFL.

Because I have to pay $200 a year to see what would be free if I lived 3,000 miles away, and because my sister who hates football has to pay Direct TV extra due to the fact that they are still losing money on the NFL agreement, I say let 'em burn.

But without copyrights, there would be no case.

[Thinkit3]

If copying information (which wants to be free) is not illegal, then there is absolutely no basis for the lawsuit at all. So that's a benefit of abolishing copyrights.

Re:But without copyrights, there would be no case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see you back to the IP posts. I was starting to get worried. I still think you should have a username like "IPTroll" or maybe "AbolishIt".

Keep up the good work. You make all the trolls proud. Never before has someone so stupid done so much with so little.

Those smartcard programmers are a sales hook.

[t0qer]

Circa 2001...

Roomate gets a DirectTV dish installed from her cousin (who coincidentally is an authorized dealer) He gives her a smartcard programmer, software, and everything she needs to reprogram her smartcard. Wife, seeing all the channels roomate has decides (against my judgement) that we should drop our cable for the same deal with "All the channels"

About a month later, the reciever goes out. Call too roomates cousin, "Oh they sent out a zap signal that fried your boxes firmware, no problem I can reprogram it" He comes over, takes the reciever apart, hooks up some hokey lookin dongle from his laptop, and after a few keypresses tada! It was working again!

Well, it wasn't just us that got it, my sister and brother in law got one too once they heard about the "free channels"

Too make a long story short, he had gotten about 10 of our friends and family with the smartcard programmer "hook" After a year of being in this contract with DirectTV we've all dumped our dishes and gone back to cable.

Re:Those smartcard programmers are a sales hook.

[fishbowl]

>Too make a long story short, he had gotten about
>10 of our friends and family with the smartcard
>programmer "hook"

I don't have a valid sample, but I do happen to know a lot of people who watch TV. And the number of people who decode their signals through clandestine means wholly outnumbers the number of people who actually pay for it.

It's because of that observation that I have never considered for one moment, getting satellite TV.

It's not because I care whether it's legal or illegal. It's that I just won't pay for something that most people expect for free. Partly because I don't care to be the paying customer who picks up the slack for the people who don't pay, and partly because the whole notion just annoys me. And another part because I'm not going to do business with these people, period, even if they are the only source for the last tv signal on the planet.

Now, I've actually done without TV for years on end too. At least, no incoming broadcasts. To most people, that is an impossible thing to conceive of. Like doing without furniture or electricity, or even food!

Re:Those smartcard programmers are a sales hook.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are a slashdotter?

All you have to do is read read read on the internet and you can figure out how the game works too and you wouldn't need your roomie's cousin to fix anything...you would download a valid bin and 3M off the net FOR FREE...

I can't believe you're a slashdotter....

My opinion...

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal RICO case is by far the most ambitious legal counterattack DirecTV has faced, though it is similar to a lawsuit Wilens filed last year in Los Angeles, on behalf of some of the same clients, including Sosa. A county judge dismissed that case last April under a California law aimed at discouraging lawsuits that stifle constitutionally-protected activities. The judge ruled that DirecTV's letters were sent in connection with litigation, and were therefore privileged
So if I read this correctly, if you want to extort somebody in California, you just have to make sure that the threat is one of being sued. That way your extortion threat is "in connection with litigation" and therefore "constitutionally-protected."

Absolutely amazing. I am glad I don't live in California. (Of course I am not sure that Michigan is any better, with the Super-DMCA laws here.)

Re:My opinion...

[Anonymous Coward]

i purchased said "device" aka smartcard programmer. it was cheap, and cool. never had a dish, never did anything involved with "satellite signal theft". got the letter, nasty nasty letter. went to www.legal-rights.org and they told me to hire a lawyer for $600 to send cease and desist letters. haven't done that yet, but it sure beats $3500 or $10000 that directv wants. either way i lose, unless cases like these win against the bastardstv.

Marginal cost per subscriber, zero.

[Thinkit3]

Artificial scarcity is illogical.

Re:Marginal cost per subscriber, zero.

[innocent_white_lamb]

Artificial scarcity is illogical.

In real life, I own and operate a movie theatre.

It costs me the same amount of money (electricity, wear-and-tear, etc) to show a movie for three people as it does to show a movie for three hundred. Does this mean that any member of the public should be able to sit in any "unsold" seats and watch the movie without having to purchase a ticket? After all, I'll be playing the movie anyway....

Endless chase

[Tacoguy]

This reminds me of the old C-Band Videocipher days. Hackers made tons of money selling hundreds of $ of TV for a fraction of the cost programers wanted. It finally evolved to smart cards for DirecTV and Dish which a new generation of hackers found as a new opportunity and challenge. The ECM (electronic counter measures) attacks issued by the providers mounted and only increased hacker profits as people got hooked on "free programming". It is downright stupid to purchase a device to program smart cards from companies with public web sites catering to this illegal activity. On another note ... anyone noticed that RIAA and SCO and DirecTV and MPAA are suddenly using litigation against consumers for flaws that they themselved caused ?

DCMA raids

[rufey]

Disclaimer: IANAL

For those who read the original article in the Register, DirectTV was only going after people who had purchased their SmartCard programmer "from one of the equipment vendors shut down in the DMCA raids".

The same article (further down) appears suggest that the vendors in the DMCA raids were companies who's primary business was devoted to selling equipment to steal satellite TV programming

Here's the relevent quote from the article that suggests this: "...how innocent is someone who goes to website that is clearly identified as a pirate website that is devoted to selling equipment to steal satellite TV programming, and orders the equipment, knowing full well what they're getting?"

Is DirectTV going after people who purchased their SmartCard programmer from other places, or is it still just those consumers who were unfortunate enough to purchase their SmartCard programmer from the wrong company?

I'm not at all for a company going out and suing people for something in which the person is not guilty, at least without giving the person the benefit of the doubt.

As I see it, the problem is that DirectTV shut down some companies that, at least in DirectTV opinion, were advertising that their SmartCard programmers, if purchased, could be used to program a SmartCard in such a way as to enable the person to watch free DirectTV. DirectTV then took the customer list from the shut down companies and assumed that everyone who purchased a SmartCard programmer did it for the purpose of stealing satellite TV.

Now, if you were one of the customers of one of these companies, and you did purchase your SmartCard programmer to steal satellite TV, what are you going to do when DirectTV comes knocking? Are you going to fess up, or are you going to invent a cover story?

But assuming that everyone obtained their SmartCard reader for illegal purposes (and, hence, creates a cover story when DirectTV comes knocking) is assuming that everyone is guilty, and in DirectTV's case, without the possibility of being proven innocent.

It really gets me that DirectTV can do this - assume guilt without the possibility of being proven innocent. I thought the US justice system was based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Isn't the burden of proof on DirectTV to prove guilt of the defendant?

Re:DCMA raids

[JayBlalock]

Is DirectTV going after people who purchased their SmartCard programmer from other places, or is it still just those consumers who were unfortunate enough to purchase their SmartCard programmer from the wrong company?

Doesn't matter. The simplest defense would be if that pirate vendor had lower prices - the free market in action. (which they often do) If someone's going to sell me a piece of equipment for half of what I'd pay for it in a retail store, as long as I'm reasonably sure the product itself isn't tainted, I'm not going to give much of a damn how he markets the product.

And beyond that, there's still nothing resembling proof there. I wouldn't even say there's REALISTICALLY probable cause. Now, DirecTV is probably gambling that they can convince the 12 sloped-foreheads in the jury box (selected by the lawyers primarily for their glassy stare) that these Smartcard programmers are ONLY for use stealing their signal. (probably using the bong\"tobacco water pipe" analogy) But to any halfway educated person, it's quite clear the products have many MORE legit purposes than non-legit.

(for that matter, a good analogy would be this: the government forces High Times magazine to give up their subscriber list, compares that to monitors credit card transaction records, and then arrests every High Time subscriber who has purchased rolling papers. Without bothering to produce actual drugs, since they can likely con a jury into convicting anyway)

For these suits to proceed, DirecTV needs to prove through perponderance of the evidence that the people in question stole their service. Know what the problem is? They can't. By its very nature, this sort of digital signal piracy is untracable. And whose fault is that? *Theirs.*

If someone comes up with a business model in which the product can be stolen anonymously, in such quantity that their basic profitability is threatened, then that company has a LOUSY BUSINESS MODEL and deserves to go out of business. Period.

Re:DCMA raids

[Anonymous Coward]

all DirecTV has to show in a civil trial is purchase from a pirate vendor.

this isn't "probable cause," which has meaning only in a criminal prosecution, but it is enough to get their case to the jury.

forcing the defendant to convincingly demonstrate that he had a legitimate need for a Smart Card programmer and a plausible excuse for dealing with a pirate.

if the defendant has no significant technical skills or experience, no history of professional or hobbyist involvement in electronics, then the jury may reasonably conclude that he is a liar and find for the plaintiff.

remember that the standard of proof in a civil trial is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but simply "more likely than not."

a win for the engineer isn't certain, since a jury may decide that the deal doesn't pass the "smell" test: since when does a pro buy commercial grade hardware off the back of a pick-up truck at three in the morning and thinks it's legit?

Re:DCMA raids

[KiDas]

Maybe I'm missing something with all of this, but how did DirectTV get their hands on this customer list?

If these companies were raided under some DMCA provision those raids were conducted by some federal or local police. The customer lists would be held by them and should not be given to DirectTV without some process of the police confirming that they are actually stealing the signals.

So... how did DirectTV get this list?!

Also, I wonder if any of these people are Canadians that are allowed to do this because they recieve the signal but cannot buy the service. In this case they aren't stealing anything.

Re:DCMA raids

[Anonymous Coward]

"The simplest defense would be if that pirate vendor had lower prices - the free market in action."

And that would be obnoxiously simple if you showed up on your trial date with clear and complete documentation of what you used the card reader for. That could be sales and inventory data, or it could be lab notes. (Keep a notebook! Lab notes are admissible, e.g., for prior art against patents!)

So the problem isn't that there are other valid uses of these devices. The problem is that credible evidence will be presented against you that says you bought the card for a purpose that has been held to be illegal. And the really big problem for you is, you probably are guilty.

Your High Times analogy is a poor one, mainly because you are bridging an analogy between a civil suit with a corporation as plaintiff and an individual as defendant, against a criminal case with the State as plaintiff, and individual as defendant, and the magazine as a witness. There's a world of difference, effectively two separate legal systems.

The contraversy and outrage on this case isn't from a solid civil liberties standpoint. It's more from the standpoint of a lot of people who are also guilty of something that they don't think should be illegal.

One point in your analogy that's useful here is that people buying "tobacco water pipes" are buying them to smoke pot. They think smoking pot shouldn't be illegal. And they know that they are buying the tobacco pipe to smoke pot, and would try to defend themselves by pointing out the fact that the tobacco pipe can be used to smoke catnip, sage, banana peels, or tobacco. But they don't really smoke tobacco from that kind of pipe (ever tried it?) So the defense isn't really valid.

Sure the laws are wrong, but at the moment that you are on trial, that doesn't really matter.

You and the people who believe as you do should have been plugging into the political process all these years, instead of passively wishing for change.

Breaking the law and calling it "civil disobedience" only makes sense when you willingly face the consequences of your actions. And it only makes a difference when millions of people do it.

Restricted blanks

[El]

I'm amazed that they feel the need to resort to legal tactics to fix what is inherently a technical problem. In fact, it appears analogous to a technical problem solved by lock makers over 100 years ago. Problem: people can easily obtain blank "keys" to fit my device, and modify these keys to use for theft. Solution: go to the makers of the blanks (in this case smart card manufacturers) and have them design a non-standard form factor key for you, and promise not to sell said key to anyone else. Bingo! You've suddenly increased the cost of entry for bootlegging cards from $3500 for an off-the-shelf programmer to several hundred thosand dollars for equipment to design and manufacture custom smart cards. Added benefit: you no longer have to associate with all those lawyers!

Re:Restricted blanks

[Alsee]

Actually the fundamental problem is a legal one.

The entire DirectTV business model is to place a free can of stew in every mailbox in North America (free public satallite broadcast) and sell can-openers (descrambling). They rely on the government to imprison anyone who uses their own can-opener.

The DMCA makes it a crime to descramble. But absolutely anything a computer can descramble can be descrambled purely menatally. If I have an encrypted e-book I can sit motionless and do the decryption calculations in my head and read the book. It may be slow and laborous to do the calculations mentally, but it is always doable.

According to the DMCA I commited a felony of circumventing the encryption and illegally reading the book. The DMCA says I can go to federal prison for up to TEN YEARS for sitting motionless and thinking prohibited thoughts. Since anti-circumvention crime amounts to thought crime I submit that the DMCA is unconstitutional. The people supposedly "stealing" DirectTV are doing nothing more than performing an "illegal" mathematical calculation.

And to clear up a common confusion, don't be fooled when DirectTV uses the misleading phrase "illegally intercepting the TV signal". When they say that they are specificlly reffering to the descrambled TV signal. The encrypted satallite broadcast is in fact a free and public broadcast. DirectTV does not dispute that it is perfectly legal to receive the encrypted satallite broadcast. They are only claiming the descrambling is illegal, and only on the basis of the DMCA.

Cable companies have a valid business model selling a connection to their network. DirectTV does not have a valid business model. The law does not exist to fix a broken business model.

-

Re:Restricted blanks

[JDBrechtel]

The thing is they *CAN* kill the hacked cards dead. They can do this effectively and quickly. Read into it and you'll find out. Several people have done this to their own cards...it can be done through software and they routinely detect hacked cards (getting "hashed") which normally results in your screen going blank or your card getting deactivated or looped. All of these can be fixed....why doesn't DTV use their kill routine you ask? Well the main theory is they let piracy continue until they believe their installed base is large enough that the number of people who WILL become paying customers is enough to push Dish Network out of business whenever DTV does finally stop piracy once and for all.

Re:Restricted blanks

[Anonymous Coward]

"It may be slow and laborous to do the calculations mentally"

You cannot ignore human proportions!

It is *NOT* possible to do this. Saying I could turn mount hood into sand using only a pickaxe
does not make it so.

Yes, you could step through a crypto algorithm by hand, if you had millions of years to do it (maybe billions?).

Re:Restricted blanks

[Alsee]

Yes, you could step through a crypto algorithm by hand, if you had millions of years to do it (maybe billions?).

Crypto algorithms are designed to be fast and easy to decrypt when you know the secret!

They give complex results from simple calculations. For example DVD encryption amounts to look-up tables a pair of shift registers. If you are familiar with binary the decryption steps are shockingly simple.

I admit decrypting an entire DVD would take quite a while if it were attempted by a single person, but that is mainly because of the sheer length of an entire DVD (4 Gig or so). But DVDs happen to come pre-divided into 2048 byte blocks. If you have a whole bunch of people you can give a block to each person and decrypt the entire DVD in parallel.

You can violate the DMCA in mere minutes or hours. Obviously that isn't enough to mentally decrypt a whole DVD alone, but it is certainly enough to start reading encrypted text. Text is merely a few dozzen bytes for each sentence, and it is illegal to decrypt even part of something.

I would love to see a demonstration of this in court before a judge. Just sit down with a DRM'd e-book at the start of the day and at the end of the day start reading the book to the judge, however far you've gotten.

The DMCA is a law you can break by merely thinking prohibited thoughts. Congress does not have the power to create thought crime. The DMCA is unconstitutional. Any unconstitutional law is not actually a law. It is NULL and VOID, the supreme court merely hasn't had an opportunity rule on the DMCA about this yet, but that does not change the fact that the DMCA is not actually a valid law. The DMCA is null and void.

Note: When I say "DMCA" I am reffering to title 17 section 1201.

-

And in

[panxerox]

8 years after its gone thru the court system and hundreds of people have been destroyed those people will get a check in the mail saying "and in recompense for your extorted payment (after lawyers fees) you are hearby awarded $3.42" Using lawyers for justice is like using nukes for peace.

Re:If copyright were abolished, no problem.

[ratboy666]

Sure -- but the fact is that DirecTV is sending their signal to me. And I didn't ask for it. Nope...

And I don't like it one bit... no sir... I need to know what is encoded in that signal, you know, the one that they are beaming into my head.

Time to add another layer of tinfoil.

Ratboy.

I am sure that this has been covered to death, but let's go through the argument:

It is LEGAL to measure the signal strength of all signals coming through my property.

It is legal to 'scope these signals, and even to record that. After all, EM evironmental analysis is reasonable.

But, it's illegal to INTERPRET that data? How about a _little_ change: make it illegal to send the EM through my property if I don't want it.

Re:If copyright were abolished, no problem.

[red floyd]

Warning: Blatant trolling follows.

What do you mean? It's just like P2P! If you have it, you're obviously an Evil Content Pirate(tm)!!!! Only Good Patriotic Corporations(tm) are allowed to have equipment like this!

Scummy Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

But you repeat yourself.

Lawyer fees are the real problem

[geekee]

Everyone's blaming DirectTV because it's cheaper to settle the case for $3500 plus your smart card reader, than to hire a lawyer to defend yourself if you're innocent. Shouldn't we be instead placing the blame on the lawyers. There's nothing illegal about offering someone a settlement to avoid litigation, particularly when the evidence is compelling. You don't need to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to file a complaint, only have some reasonable evidence. I don't consider suing someone who bought equipment advertized primarily for reprogramming DirctTV smart cards inherently wrong, because they're more than likely guilty. If they're not, they have the option to defend themselves in court. If they settle instead, that doesn't make it extortion. It's unfortunate that a reasonable settlement fee for a guilty party is less than the cost of defending yourself if you're innocent, but the lawyers are to blame for that, not DirectTV.

s/disney/cartoon\ network/ [nt]

[Stradenko]

no text.

Smash it with a ballpeen hammer

[Buran]

... they sent it to you unrequested in the mail. By law it's yours.

Then send them the photos. :)

"Disassemble THIS!"

BOOTLOADERS/GLITCHERS

[Anonymous Coward]

Are not smart card programmers.

These units probably were preloaded with the 2313 atmel firmware to glitch into the cards.

This means the units were pre-loaded with software with intent to glitch a card to do the deed.

That is quite a far cry from a simple programmer..

You don't use a glitcher to do windows 2000 security now do you?

glitching is a very precise function and serves no purpose except to break into a specific smart cards (p3-hu's). It will not break into P4's or other smart cards.

Hmm.

There is some intent purchasing such a "glitcher" that comes with the firmware loaded on the chip. What else would you use the unit for?

If you wanted to program regular smart cards wouldn't you buy a simple iso programmer instead?

Kinda like buying a rifle with a silencer and flash suppressor and carrying it around. Would you truly use such a specialized device for defense or hunting? i doubt it.

Re:BOOTLOADERS/GLITCHERS

[Dun Malg]

These units probably were preloaded with the 2313 atmel firmware to glitch into the cards.

This means the units were pre-loaded with software with intent to glitch a card to do the deed.

But they weren't preloaded with the glitching firmware-- that's what made them "gray-market" rather than outright illegal. No one sells pre-programmed glitchers. They sell them unprogrammed and then "make available" the firmware. This dodge doesn't do as much for the sellers as they'd hoped, but in the end it happens to pretty well cover the buyer because purchasing a card-programmer is no longer solid prima facie evidence of intent.

Re:BOOTLOADERS/GLITCHERS

[Alsee]

You don't use a glitcher to do windows 2000 security now do you?

There is some intent purchasing such a "glitcher" that comes with the firmware loaded on the chip. What else would you use the unit for?

But the fact that they are commonly cheaper than other card readers and that they can in fact be re-programmed for general use blow your entire argument to smithereens. It is perfectly rational to buy a cheaper "glitcher" for perfectly legal use.

Kinda like buying a rifle with a silencer and flash suppressor and carrying it around. Would you truly use such a specialized device for defense or hunting? i doubt it.

Hell yes, if the rifle with silencer and flash suppressor were in fact cheaper/more convient to obtain than a "plain" rifle. (And assuming I were in fact a deer hunter.)

-

Look closely to the right hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

They've got everybody focused on "so what if I bought some equipment, it doesn't mean I'm using it like you say". It seems like nobody's recalling the law says that "what's flying through my yard is mine". Including sattelite tv. You should do your best to encrypt or whatever and protect your business because if you put it in my house I'm entitled to use it for free.

The first step in changing the law is adjusting mentalities.

It's a symptom of a different problem

[Solandri]

It's a symptom of the cost of attempting to obtain justice (factoring in statistical win/loss likelihood analysis) exceeding the value of obtaining justice in some cases. So financially constrained people (i.e. the little guy) choose the path involving the least losses, which is foregoing justice.

If that becomes the norm, there's no longer any point to having a legal system and civilized society breaks down. A fact that I fear too many corporations and law firms are losing sight of in their blind pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Re:It's a symptom of a different problem

[stwrtpj]

It's a symptom of the cost of attempting to obtain justice (factoring in statistical win/loss likelihood analysis) exceeding the value of obtaining justice in some cases. So financially constrained people (i.e. the little guy) choose the path involving the least losses, which is foregoing justice.

The problem is that civil law has fallen through the cracks. Given the choice between criminal charges and civil litigation pursued against me, I'd almost rather have the criminal charges. At least in that case, under the American system, I'm guaranteed representation by a lawyer, a trial of a jury of my peers, and I have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not so in civil litigation. Sure, I can try to recover court costs in a countersuit, but meanwhile I have to take out loans, a third mortgage, etc, just to pay for the lawyer.

We need reform in civil law. If some honking big company comes after me for something, they should be required to pay for my lawyer until the trial is decided. If they win, they recover that money. The idea is, if you're sure you're in the right, you ought to be willing to put up the money up front. Either that, or some government fund available to defendants that cannot afford the legal costs. Something needs to be done to make the system more balanced than it is now.

Re:It's a symptom of a different problem

[MCZapf]

I like that idea. I like it a lot. As an alternative, maybe we should have public defender-type lawyers for civil trials.

Don't Set Bad Precedent

[billstewart]

If they do come after you, the only reasons NOT to spend your money defending yourself are

• You can get some public-spirited organization to do it pro bono, or
• You work for a company that will pay for it, or
• You can make them go away with a few carefully-written letters without getting to court.

Otherwise

• You don't know court procedures well enough to avoid getting screwed even though you're right and they're totally bogus. Lawyers know this stuff, you know computers, so hire them for legal work and have them hire you for computer work.
• If you lose, you're setting a precedent that makes it easier for Them to knock over the next little guy, and after blowing over a few easy targets, it makes it easier for them to abuse other people. If you're not going to do an adequate defense, and not going to chicken out and pay them, you're endangering the rest of us.
• If you beat them in court, you can often force them to pay your legal costs. If they beat you, they can usually get you to pay their (very high) legal costs as well as whatever bogus damages they claim.
• Sometimes you can get triple damages on your legal costs - this RICO statute, for all its really seriously horrendous problems, does make that easier to get.
• One reason lawyers from groups like the EFF or ACLU sometimes take cases isn't just good citizenship - it's getting legal costs covered if they win.

DirecTV suit against local man dismissed...

[Rainbird98]

When computer expert Jack Goynes of Charleston saw the technology wave moving toward smart cards, he jumped on it. He didn't figure he would be sued. Read the complete story here

We're done with the dish.

[yerricde]

directv just happens to have the best programming and prices.

Programming doesn't matter if one can't get it. Here are the two reasons why I stay with Comcast cable rather than the dish: 1. There are problems with dish technology even with professional installation. Branches blow into the signal, you lose signal when it rains, you can't get it if there's a tall building south of you, etc. 2. For those who can get cable Internet access but can't or won't get DSL or terrestrial fixed wireless Internet access (reasons include geography), DirecTV's Internet access has latency worse than dial-up for even web surfing, let alone action games.

We're done with the dish.

Re:We're done with the dish.

[madcow_ucsb]

Digital cable would win for me, if they didn't force you to use their god-awful boxes and have the guide software run from their end. I know four people with digital cable and 3 of them have to use that slow as hell "TV Guide" guide. There's at least a one second lag on pushing ANY button on the box (it's usually about 2sec) and there are so many ads on it you can only see 30min at a time in the channel list. Worst interface ever.

That and their "digital quality" is typically covered with REALLY obvoius artifacts. Ugh. Give me satellite or give me analog.

Suave shampoo

[yerricde]

can you post a link to everything I want to know about SUAVE?

Clean your hair with Suave and pay less.

why i chose rabbit ears

[Anonymous Coward]

Myself, I stick with broadcast TV. PBS is great, and if commercial networks are more your speed, then you've got ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, and "The WB". Plus, HDTV kicks ass.

Of course, microwave satellite transmissions are broadcast TV as well...

The only difference between what you can pull in via rabbit ears versus a dish is that the VHF, UHF, and HDTV stations are made available in an open and documented format, whereas the satellite transmissions are closed, proprietary, and "protected" by the DMCA.

All true freedom-loving people will choose the open-source, wireless alternative.

It's free, and it's here now. Why not use it?

Re:why i chose rabbit ears

[Anonymous Coward]

HDTV is unprotected? Look again.

As far as I'm concerned

[SuiteSisterMary]

As far as I'm concerned, saying that I can't decode the satellite signals being beamed into my house (especially since I live in Canada, where you *can't buy* the service) is like saying that if I happen to walk past a venue that a band is playing, and I can hear the music, I owe them the price of a ticket.

Re:As far as I'm concerned

[fishbowl]

"...saying that I can't decode the satellite signals being beamed into my house is like saying that if I happen to walk past a venue that a band is playing, and I can hear the music, I owe them the price of a ticket."

Isn't that the current situation, legally, in Canada?

Re:As far as I'm concerned

[SuiteSisterMary]

Neh. The courts shot it down, and I believe the argument was that it's unfair to the companies that *are* selling service in Canada, mainly Bell ExpressVu and Starchoice.

Re:s/disney/cartoon\ network/ [nt]

[leviramsey]

Get the Hentai Channel, and save some money!

I'll bite

[Nic-o-demus]

There is some intent purchasing such a "glitcher" that comes with the firmware loaded on the chip. What else would you use the unit for?

You're probably right for the majority of cases. To tell the truth, though, if I was figuring out how to program a smartcard, and had no idea what I was doing (which I don't), I would buy one in a second to see how it was done.
These two may have committed a crime or not (I think they may not have). Regardless, the point is that the threat of legal action in this case is being wielded (I know, it's a common issue on /.) as if it really was justice. Which is to say, the potential cost of justice has turned it into a tool for extortion. Now this is the closest thing I've seen (this lawsuit) to saying in all bluntness that threatening legal action on a massive scale is the same as extortion. I honestly believe that it might go somewhere. Many judges and some lawyers, believe it or not, actually care something for justice, and don't like seeing it adulterated. I think that given an opportunity, you'll see the Judicial Branch bite back a bit at greed.

ahhh, see?! Dirty rats!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll rub 'em all out... its coi'tuns for all a' dem dirty rats.

King of Torts

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently listened to the unabridged version of John Grisham's "King of Torts" and was very entertained. While the purpose was merely to pass the time on a long drive I found that I am very pleased with the potrayal of the ambulance chasing thieves. What is more entertaining is the very acurate potrayal of their self justifying manifesto of "leveling the playing field" and "striking out at theiving corporations." Amazing how so many let hate and misdirection skew their ability to judge thieves and tyrants.

60 K a year?

[Anonymous Coward]

I make 24K, bust my ass for that 24K I might add, and am threatened legal action because I'm a geek that was at one point interested with what I could create from a smart card assembly.

If I want to defend myself, I would basically have to stop paying my rent for a year. Thanks, DirecTV.

This is like threatening legal action against anyone that buys a cigarette lighter for crack possession. (Hey! You could smoke crack with that! Give us $3500 or go to court!)

I would love to post this under my username (and not AC) but this post could potentially be used in court. (sigh)

Re:not generic smartcard writers

[mabhatter654]

DirectTV isn't presuing just generic smartcard writers. The customer records they are suing came from known illegetimate vendors. The readers were shipped with a blank or flashed eprom for the enablement of cracking DirectTV cards. They were also considerably cheaper than "professional" sanctioned units.

There may be a few hobbiests that get bit by this, but these customers were buying from places esentially advertizing using the tool for stealing DirectTV.

Unfortunately, the best outcome that can occur could be criminal charges filed against the customers. In my opinion that would be more fair for everyone involved. The FBI could then properly investigate and set some guidelines..perhaps confiscate the offending readers. People wouldn't be unnecessarily sued, but the guilty would be in a world of hurt...although the government is probably too slow to attempt such wide scale enforcement. Which is too bad because DirectTV is abusing the system to try and get some relief.

New IQ Test

[ottothecow]

Pay up $3500 and return the machine, IQ: 80
Pay up $3500 and keep the machine for your legitimate purposes, IQ:
90 Pretend you dont speak english, IQ: 100
Happen to be a lawyer and decide to go to court, IQ: 110
Pay up $3500 that you subsidize by selling machine to your pirate buddy while a huge storm of opportunist lawyers grab at your case, IQ: 130
Send DirecTV a matching goatse check (linked to CEO's account) and friendly tubgirl thank-you letter, IQ: 150+++

Re:If this was the GLP...

[mabhatter654]

If this was the GPL you'd all be singing a different tune. After all, what happens when the general public sees "free" software and starts moding and distributing for profit however they want. The FSF can't police them all after all. It's free, it's on their computers, why can't they do what ever they want?

If people were creating cards from scratch to decode private chanels that would be a different thing--true hacking. But this is people mearly cracking the legally protected encryption because they are too cheap to pay.

Let's change the items. If the electric Co disconnects your power, should you reconected it without paying...Water, cable? What about a grocery store. After all, they let you wander the aisles unsupervised, if they wanted there stuff "safe" they should lock it up better, right. How dare they search MY pockets...that's my privacy after all? Why can't I pull all the grass at the park up by it's roots? Dump barrels of used oil in my part of the local river? Let's hit you where you live. Why does your boss have to pay you every single week? After all, most people are employed at-will, maybe he didn't will to pay you for last week and forgot to tell you. Civilized society needs rules to operate! Just because there's a computer involved doesn't mean that all the normal civilized rules go out the window.

Also, the card belongs to the company. On the back of my Dish card it has something to the effect that the card and the software on the card are theirs. If you stop paying for the service, you're supposed to return the card to them as you are only "borrowing" it. Because part of the software is hardcoded to the card, you cannot reverse-engineer the smartcard--you have to use a cracked DSS card.

Perhaps the best thing for DirectTV would be to Schedule a 100% burn of every card in every machine for a 2-3 day period. Destroy them all! Then have the lawyers mail out the new cards after the paying subscribers sign a legal contract for accepting and returning the cards that has severe concequences for sharing or cracking the cards. Then see what happens. After day 30days they could call in all the markers issue new ones, and sue the hell out of anyone who "lost" theirs or returned a cracked one. That brute force effort may be the only way people learn. Much like the RIAA actually sending people to every Kazza PC and noting the files there then suing every single user. It's sheer brute force, but if these people got together they could really do some damage. Of course then everyone would realize that OSS and the like is a really good thing rather than cheating the system and hoping the owners look the other way.

This I would mod as funny, if I had points.

[Grog6]

oh well.

Time to fix the legal system: my escrow solution

[bee]

I wrote about how to fix the legal system so tactics like DirecTV's little scam wouldn't work, back in January 2002. Here's the link to it. The basic idea is that if you threaten someone with legal action, you have to put money in an escrow account that they can use for their defense. When they spend money on legal fees, they also have to do the same thing, and you can use the money out of their escrow. Now if the sides are balanced financially, it'll all come out a wash, but if you're the little guy, you'll be able to use his escrow money to pay your legal bills and your escrow. Presto, no more bankruptcy tactics, and all of us little guys can just laugh at scumbags like DirecTV and SCO, like we should be able to without fear in the first place.

Re:If this was the GLP...

[Anonymous Coward]

The really notable thing about your example is that it actually makes some sense for DirecTV to do that, where it would never be necessary for any of the other providers you mention to do anything analogous - water, electricity (note these are consumables - the more I take, the less for everyone else; what I take can't be sold again), or even cable (which is on barely better ground than satellite in many cases).

Your core assumption is that these businesses are perfectly reasonable and legitimate, their business plans make sense, and it's the vast majority of people's attitudes that are out of whack and in need of some re-neducation. I submit that people feel very differently about grafting a cable signal or using a cracked satellite card because they're different things from water or electricity. Sometimes when everyone's natural instinct is to disagree with you, it's because what you're trying to do is unnatural. DSS has no inherent right to exist and be successful, and if people can circumvent its protections by doing things in their own home that seem perfectly reasonable to them (until they're properly indoctrinated), it probably just doesn't make sense as currently configured). The core concept of selling a service is to make it something the buyer can't or doesn't want to do themself. DirecTV could do that by juicing up their service so that a cracked receiver just isn't as much fun. Instead they sue.

One more way Business shows contempt for techies..

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit offtopic and sophmoric maybe,
but it shows what Business types *really* think about techies and their ilk. They don't like 'em an their toys, never will, and will find ways to make em suffer. We don't hear much about their own ranks under seige for any of their mass exploits, but whoa, steal some cable tv or copy a song, undermining *their* business model with superior skills, and you will pay buster...

owning chip the same as any other possession crime

[Pilgrimer]

Shamino made the comments:
If you default on a loan enough, you'll get a letter from the collection agency along with a subpoena, you can either pay up or go to court. In a legal sense, this isn't much different.

It's tremendously different. A collection agency has proof that you defaulted on a loan.

DirecTV has no proof that any of these people have committed any crime. No matter what they'd like to claim in press releases, purchase of a SmartCard programmer is not proof that you are stealing DirecTV broadcasts.

They are threatening expensive legal action without any proof of wrondoing, and they are demanding money to make the threats go away. Sounds like a clear cut case of racketeering and extortion.

BUT....All these arguements are missing the point that we have a history in this country of saying if you own it (i.e. possess 'it') than that is proof enough of use/illegality. so for these coproprations (small governments in and of themselves given the rights of governments many times by our wonderfull governmental officeholders) to sue and attempt to intimidate you into compliance and control isnot anything new or anything to be surprised at.

DirecTV and the RIAA must hate their foot

[Powercntrl]

...because they both sure love to shoot themselves in it.

Imagine for a moment if the RIAA was able to send free DRM CD players to everyone who currently owns a NON-DRM one. Then they stop releasing open CDs and just release the DRM ones. Sure, the protection will get hacked eventually, but then they just send out new CD players again, or include a firmware update on newer albums. Hey, if they could do that, they wouldn't need to sue anyone!

Well guess what, the RIAA can't do that but DirecTV CAN! Every DirectTV receiver has a removable smart card and there is no reason why DirectTV can't simply kill the feed for the old cards and send out new ones. As a matter of fact, they're actually in the process of a swap out RIGHT NOW! It seems DirecTV is simply going through with these lawsuits out of spite.

DirecTV has a way out and should just consider the pirates they had in the past to be a lesson learned and deal with the fact that sending new access cards to their subscribers is just a cost of doing business... Pissing off your customers is the most surefire way to end up out of business. Maybe the RIAA has enough of a monopoly on mainstream music to bleed itself a bit before it eventually gets a clue, but DirecTV is hardly a monopoly and they could end up out of business with enough consumer backlash.

Knives, cocaine and patents

[Alain Williams]

I bought a sharp kitchen knife the other day, fortunately the police did not arrest me because I might have used it to murder someone.

A friend bought a mirror, they were not arrested because they might have used it to snort cocaine.

Things have multiple uses. The law recognises that.

DirectTV is indulging in the same sort of extortion that the holders of software patents do. Threaten someone with a potentially expensive, although unjustified, lawsuit - and offer to settle for a fraction of the cost. Most people/companies will give in - it is not just the cost in legal fees, but the time wasted & emotional drain of going to court -- I know, post divorce, I have spent 8 years fighting to see my kids.

Re:s/disney/cartoon\ network/ [nt]

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that for real!?!

Re:not generic smartcard writers

[Alsee]

They were also considerably cheaper than "professional" sanctioned units.
There may be a few hobbiests that get bit by this

Exactly! Any legitimate hobbiest is obviously go buy a more expensive "professional" unit. [/sarcasm]

It doesn't matter if some (or all) of them are innocent! Throw all the damn bastards in prison!

-

Re:...but but but...

[fishbowl]

I don't do any sort of subscription TV, and the reason is that I've witnessed too damned many people with apparatus to get it free.

Face it, there's a LOT of people decoding this signal and not paying the subscription rate. I don't make a right/wrong judgement on that, it's simply that it devalues the service for me when I know that it is routinely gotten free. I sure as hell don't like the idea of paying for it to pick up the slack of others.

Like I said, I don't *care* whether it's legal/illegal/right/wrong. What I care about is the perceived value, which lowers dramatically for me simply because I know so many people are not paying for it.

It just makes me not want the thing, get it?

A Simple Fix...

[iolaus]

It seems to me that this problem (and thousands like it) could be easily fixed by simply making the loser of a court case responsible for all costs associated with the lawsuit. This would force parties to think twice before filing frivolous lawsuits and at the same time should not dissuade anyone who feels their case is legitimately winnable.

Re:A Simple Fix...

[fishbowl]

Your utopian scheme still favors the big fish. Might even make things worse, when the big fish still win the lawsuits and the loser gets to pay millions more for the expensive lawyers.

What's to stop a corporation from having an arrangement with the expensive lawyer that the debts will be excused if the suit is lost, but not if the suit is won and the defendant has to pay?

How is this fair in all conditions, say a huge corp. suing an individual or small business, an individual suing a huge corp, or two indvidiuals suing each other?

The fact is, most of the huge costs associated with a lawsuit are incurred at the party's discretion. It may not be wise to go to trial without counsel, but it's certainly not required. And it's definitely not required to hire expensive counsel!

Re:...but but but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can get Sunday Ticket on C-Band, and you should be able to pick up enough FOX/CBS feeds off of C-Band FOR FREE to basically have Sunday ticket without paying for it...

Difference

[siskbc]

Though I do agree a RICO suit may not be appropriate for SCO, but legal action is definitely in order (against SCO).

I would love to see it, but I don't know if they've been dumb enough to do anything flat out illegal - remember, they hired Boies. And while it's not Kosher for the mob to say, sell you "fire insurance" to make sure your house isn't burned down, SCO believes they have real "IP" interests here (I say IP because they keep changing their minds on which kind), and as such should be well within their rights to give a "discount" to those who "license" the IP before any legal wrangling.

In fact, going to everyone's second favorite lawsuit (DirecTV), that hasn't even been found illegal yet, as they've won so far. And what they did is far more blatant than SCO. "We're suing you. Send us some money, or we'll crush you like a bug."

I just don't think the racketeering or extortion suit against SCO will work.