Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Racketeering Suit Filed Against DirecTV

Posted by michael on from the one-reason-why-i-chose-cable dept.

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."

4 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. A blatant karma grab by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Everything you wanted to know about RICO.

  2. Re:If copyright were abolished, no problem. by AnusesCheeses · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:...but but but... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  4. Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO by sribe · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 ;-)