Slashdot Mirror
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."
...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...
My Stack Overflow user
Everything you wanted to know about RICO.
I was just wondering why SCO hasn't been sued under RICO. It's the same type of thing, isn't it?
Of course, what logically follows is:
Note the uncanny lack of a ??? step in this scheme.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Irish Mob accuses DirectTV of copyright infringement over the use of extortion as a business practice...
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!!!
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.)
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
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.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
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.
The coolest voice ever.
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!!!
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.
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.
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?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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.
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.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
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
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?
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!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
"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.
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.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)