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

A blatant karma grab

[sjbe]

Everything you wanted to know about RICO.

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: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: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:...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.

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.

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