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

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.

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.

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

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?"

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.