Slashdot Mirror
DirecTV Extortion Program stopped by EFF
eticket writes "After several years of an Organized Extortion program DirecTV has been stopped by the EFF. As many of you may know DirecTV has been suing people who purchased card programers even if they had legitimate reasons for them. Many have settled to avoid legal issues. The problem was they had to prove innocence instead of DirecTV proving guilt. The only thing that DirecTV did was say they purchased the card programmer from a site that sold Satellite pirating equipment. Even though there are legitimate uses. Thanks to the EFF for stopping this horrible miscarriage of the legal system. "
Is everyone forgetting that DirecTV has effectively shut down the "pirates" (for now) by phasing out the last of the "hackable" smart cards? Between that and their soaring subscriber base (especially when compared to cable), it's no longer cost effective for them to continue with these tactics, nor is it worth the negative publicity. I'm all for the EFF, but if the RIAA found a way to stop 99.9% of file sharing, they'd drop their lawsuits too. Hate them all you want, but they are only fighting a perceived threat, using what they consider to be a deterent. If there's nothing left to deter, they aren't going to spend the money on it.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
If you settle, you are agreeing that the other side's case had merit such that you're willing to pay to make it go away.
:)
Those who were truely not involved in stealing DirecTV's signal should have allowed the lawsuit to go forward, let DirecTV put on their case, and then move for dismissal immediately after that case before even needing to put on a defense.
DirecTV's case in some of these situations were so weak that they actually lost a case where the defendant didn't even show up because they didn't have enough evidence to merit a default ruling... that's a rather bad defeat when you can't beat a defense that's not even in the room.
Just like the contrary verdicts in the OJ Simpson murder cases... you can be not guilty of a crime, but still be liable for that same crime because the criminal standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" and the civil standard is "a perponderance of the evidence".
In short, as long as DirecTV's evidence alone implies that it's more likely than not that you stole their service, you're going to need to put on an affirmative defense to tip the scales back into your favor. They don't need to prove you guilty...
Of course you're innocent until proven guilty. In a criminal court of law, that is. In a civil lawsuit, more likely than not is usually good enough.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
There is a link (pops) off of the main article to the DirecTV Defense website that has a rundown of DirecTV's machinations. Included as part of the awareness package is a list of uses for smart cards, including IDs, storage of cryptographic keys, secure memory storage...etc.
#define CLUE 0
No, unloopers exist for repairing smartcards. Check out SDLOGIC's equipment. They sell unloopers for purely legitimate purposes yet DTV is intending to sue them.
Bootloaders as well have legitimate uses....they can be used for retrieving critical data off physically damaged smartcards.
If the wording of the EFF's statement is held true, and DTV actually INVESTIGATES these purchases rather than carpet bombing the customer lists with extortion letters, then it will be what we've wanted since the beginning. This is only half.
The law says it is, regardless of how vociferously you object. Legally speaking it is theft, or to be more specific, theft of services, and is a felony in many states, usually depending on the dollar value of the services that have been stolen. New Jersey law. Pennsylvania law. Kentucky law. And so forth.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Well, actually the government didn't make any such declaration - if you recall, the government was arguing very strenuously that he was, in fact, guilty. In the criminal case, a jury of his peers determined that he was not guilty according to the standards used to decide guilt in criminal cases, and the government - and the rest of us, for that matter - are bound to respect. Now, in murder cases, the government brings charges on behalf of the dead person - it has to be that way, since they're not around to press charges any more. But that doesn't mean the victims were the only ones harmed by the murder - others who have been harmed, but not criminally victimized, can sue in civil court to recover the damages they have suffered. So the state prosecutes criminally on behalf of the victims, and the families sue on their own behalf, based on the idea that they have been harmed by the actions of the accused - specifically, they were deprived of family members. And double jeopardy doesn't apply the way you might think in such cases - you can be sued for as many times as there are people to bring claims of damage against you, although each person who has been harmed may only sue you once. But if you murder twenty people, you can expect dozens and dozens of lawsuits from their family members, each one claiming you've harmed them.
As well, you can be tried more than once for the same act, if that same act encompasses more than one offense. Suppose I intend to kidnap you and hold you for ransom, but as I grab you off the street, I handle you too roughly, and you die. Even though there's but a single act that I performed, I can be charged with any or all of several offenses - murder, attempted kidnapping, assault and battery, and so forth. And charging me with all of those things, and even trying me seperately for them, doesn't violate double jeopardy. Finally, concurrent or subsequent state and federal prosecutions don't violate double jeopardy - so sez the Supreme Court - on the theory that the federal government and state government are both sovereigns, and both have an interest in prosecution. This is how the federal government was able to prosecute the police in the Rodney King affair, despite the fact that they had been acquitted in state court - A) dual sovereignty, and; B) they were charged in federal court with a different offense arising from the same act, namely depriving King of his civil rights, which is a crime under federal law.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.