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."

A blatant karma grab

[sjbe]

Everything you wanted to know about RICO.

Re:A blatant karma grab

[wembley]

Cool. Now I understand "The Sopranos".

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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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...

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!...

[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.)

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)

[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. :-)

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!!!

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]

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: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

[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!!!

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?"

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..

[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..

[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...

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:...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.

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.

Marginal cost per subscriber, zero.

[Thinkit3]

Artificial scarcity is illogical.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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: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.