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

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.

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

[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

[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.

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!...

[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.

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.)

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. :-)

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...

[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.

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?

[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?"

Marginal cost per subscriber, zero.

[Thinkit3]

Artificial scarcity is illogical.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.