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. "
While I guess it's a step in the right direction, reading this part just drives me nuts:
"The company also promised that it will investigate every substantive claim of innocence it receives. If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases."
Oh, now I have to provide "sufficient evidence" that I'm not guilty? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on their side?
Basically, the bully is going to try to be a little nicer.
Ahh, thanks.
Also - DirecTV isn't STOPPING it's hunt... they're merely modifying it:
It's not unreasonable for them to look for people that are actually pirating the signal. The problem with the lawsuits was that they made no distinction between those that were pirating the signal and those that had the equipment for legitimate uses. If the modification of their hunt means going from merely suing people who possess the technology to pirate the signal to suing people who are actually at least likely pirating the signal, it's a step in the right direction.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
As a business, the worst thing to do is to sue your own customers for some obscure reasons...... the same goes for RIAA!
-----
"If everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on." - Murphy's Law
Directly from the article:
"If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases. EFF and CIS will monitor reports of this process to confirm that innocent device purchasers are having their cases dismissed."
So you are STILL guilty until proven innocent. This saga is not over yet.
Some people might not have even known that owning the cards were legal. When presented with such a demanding document to "settle or else" it makes most people scared. And you're right.. most people will settle just to make it go away... However, if you are under the impression that it's illegal to own such a device.. they have records you purchased it, etc.. Of course you would settle!
Hmmm.
Well, I would like to direct my business to companies whose practices do not include abusing our court system. From my point of view the two companies seem to offer very similar service. So, if I'm going to choose one over the other, picking the one that's less lawyer/lawsuit happy seems like a perfectly legit reason.
I don't forsee myself buying a smart card reader, but who knows? I'm not one to try and pirate cable/satellite, but I might just be curious and want to poke around with the hardware that I own (I will be buying my own hardware, not leasing it).
Casual Games/Downloads
Dish doesn't usualy sue people over this sort of thing. They have other methods of preventing piracy.
Actualy, when push comes to shove, DirecTV's content protection scheme is weaker, which is one of the reasons they have such a problem with piracy.
You don't see Dish doing this because there just aren't that many people that actualy pirate the signal.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
But bootloaders and unloopers exist solely for the purpose of unscrambling satellite signals.
Arguments about "if the signal reaches my house I should be able to use it" aside, this is how the law stands, and that's who they should be after.
It's like the diffence between an xbox mod with a hardcoded version of a hacked MS bios vs doing it yourself with a blank EEPROM. The first is an infringement if it ships out with MS's IP (which is why all current mods ship out blank, or with cromwell), the second is just a stock part you can get at any decent electronics shop.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Yeah, BUT, P4 may prove hackable with stock components (ie; not ordering some device that specifically exists only to hack DTV).
Imagine one day you go to radio shack to buy a couple voltage regulators and some resistors, and wind up being sued for $$$$$ because those components can be used to pirate satellite (a purposefully dumb example).
I think the important point is they're agreeing to go after people purchasing stuff that's specifically designed for hacking satellite.
Frankly, I think all the various local free-to-air channels on satellite should be available for anyone who wants to buy a dish (ABC, CBS, etc). Think about it, everyone buys a dish to watch the free stuff, and 75% of them one day "upgrade" to get HBO or Spice channel. They'd absolutely *cream* cable. And I really don't see what's so wrong with me in MD wanting to watch the local news from CA. But that's all offtopic.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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
The problem there is, it still costs money to defend yourself in court, even if its rediculously in your favor. You not only need to pay your lawyer, and miss work, you also need to travel to wherever DirecTV decided to sue you. They use every legal trick to drag it out and make it as expensive for you as possible.
They won't typicly sue people that have the means or the will to defend themselves.
Oh, for fucks sake, it's NOT stealing. How the fuck is it stealing? If you stand outside my house and throw rolls of quarters through my window, I'm keeping them, so fuck you. And even *that* is more similar to stealing than this. They're already beaming their signal straight into my fucking skull while I sleep. It costs them absolutely nothing, and they lose absolutely nothing, if I have hardware to decode that signal. Whether or not that signal is turned into viewable television or just radiates my already shrivelled testicles has absolutely no effect on DirecTV, their finances, or any of their property. So yeah, it's a violation of the DMCA (in the U.S.) and of copyright laws, but IT'S NOT FUCKING GODDAMN STEALING.
do not read this line twice.
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.
Or that it would be less expensive to pay off the plaintiff than pay lawyers to go to trial. A settlement is not an admission of guilt, just a legal shortcut that could end up saving money.
This totally reaks of the auto industry. I was even told by a [credible shut my mouth source] that a company will go after you even if they don't have a case, just to see if you will settle.
kulakovich
It's nice that DirecTV has agreed to restrain itself, but the REAL problem here is a legal system that allows a giant corporation to bankrupt and besmirch an individual without FIRST having to provide concrete proof that they have a case.
This is what DirecTV was doing, and it's what the RIAA is doing now. This has GOT to stop.
Corporatism != Free Market
DirecTV also agreed to change its pre-lawsuit demand letters to explain in detail how innocent recipients can get DirecTV to drop their cases. The company also promised that it will investigate every substantive claim of innocence it receives. If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases.
Does evidence that you do use your smart card programming interface/hardware for legitimate purposes count towards the not-well-defined "sufficient" amount of evidence "demonstrating that [you] did not use [your] devices for signal theft"? It's the same old logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative - what evidence do they expect supports the assertion that you did not try to program cards for part of a signal-theft scheme?
They're not very clear on this - though I (generously) presume there's some more practical definition somewhere in the process, . . . but I still think the burden of proof to even start this kind of proceeding should be on the accuser - show some evidence that each potential defendant did commit the crime. It seems that this still leaves plenty of room for harrassing innocent geeks who happen to work for companies who, for example, program industrial security systems, which could have included me a few years ago.
Can you imagine the fallout of an army major saying "gee Mr. JAG Officer, I had no idea that lieutenant smith was killing civilians while we were occupying this village."
Um.... isn't that exactly what's happening with the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib?
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
It costs quite a bit to launch a satellite into space, let alone 4 or 5 like DirecTV have. DirecTV knows that if it becomes too easy and widespread to pirate the signal their legitimite user base will shrivel up into nothing, yet their service will be used by all. Don't blame them for trying to protect their company, unless they outsource to India or something.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
They're already beaming their signal straight into my fucking skull while I sleep
And when you walk past a corporate building, the 802.11b wireless is beaming into your skull as well. Oh wait, your MOTHERFUCKING skull. Sorry. That doesn't mean you are allowed to crack the WEP key and associate to the access point. The situation is no different with cable descramblers. It's coming over the coax into your GODDAMN house. Doesn't mean you can decode the Playboy channel and start watching it. You'd be stealin from Hef.
those ads on tv, and the phrase in the article "Stealing Satellite SIGNALS"... Now i may be way off base, but how the heck does one steal a satellite signal?
It's part of the campaign to equate copyright infringement with theft of property.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
That's the way settlements are supposed to work, but if an individual who has little legal knowledge and no attorney involved is presented with a lawsuit and told to sign these papers or face crippling legal bills, they might very well sign something that causes them to admit guilt, pay a bunch of money, hand over their first born, etc. An attorney would advise against this and make sure the settlement is confidential and admits nothing, but many people are not aware of this.
Heh, in reality you are agreeing that a Large Company With Deep Pockets has enough money to pay their lawyers longer than you can afford to pay yours.
While the insane legal interpretation may be that you admit the case had merit, that is rarely the case. This is why McDonalds coffee cups now have a printed warning that the contents may be hot. Duh.
If we had some tort reform in the US, and insituted a "loser pays" system, then the truly innocent could afford to fight the good fight to the end rather than settle, and legal persecutions in the US courts would all but disappear.
But the lawyers we elect to represent us will never let that happen... Lawyers make a living out of creating victims where there were none.
-RockDoggy
Theft of service? I am not being supplied a service! The RF is being fed to me whether or not I like it! Now, I don't decode it, because I couldn't be bothered.
But, if decoding the signal is "illegal" is it also illegal to measure that signal?
Patently not. If you or anyone else doesn't want me to have the signal, DON'T BEAM IT AT ME.
Got that? If its in MY FUCKING HOUSE, YOU GAVE IT TO ME.
Now, I *do* pay for cable -- go figure. But a BROADCAST SIGNAL?
If it where sufficiently strong, and I rectified it to power my stuff, would this be wrong? NO.
The sunshine that falls on my property is MINE. and the EM that crosses my property is also MINE.
Theft of "service". What a crock of shit that law is.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
But companies like this throw all kinds of crap in their letters etc. that are scarry enough to push most people aside. They're not just saying stop or I'll sue you. They put all sorts of stuff in that make it look like they have a strong case. And if you have looked through these kinds of documents, you'll know that 99% or more of the people wouldn't be able to decipher what the hell they are saying without spending money that they may not have to spend on a lawyer. Again, what Direct' and other companies like them count on.
I doubt if your fellow geeks will stand up with you. Most I know (and I am a programmer, so I know a lot) will talk big, but won't do anything (like most people I guess... re: Liar Liar: "going to bend over and take it up the ass"). Besides geeks won't do anything in groups unless forced because they don't like working together that much (ever try to pass some working code on to another programmer without them insulting the code in some way and then re-writing sections of it... and no, I'm not talking about my code... but I'm not big headed enough to exclude it either :-). Otherwise IT jobs would not be in the exempt category for overtime (which usually means forced overtime), and there would actually be some organization to lobby hard against overseas outsourcing. If people won't work together to protect their livlihoods, I don't think they will work together to fight to be able to program a card.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
His central point was about diminished value. Cracking the WEP key and using that corporate network diminishes capacity on that network. Additional unpaid-for descrambling devices on a coax cable network diminishes signal strength. Placing a dish on the roof to receive a signal that is there regardless of the presence of the dish diminishes absolutely nothing. His argument is that it doesn't fit the common sense definition of "theft". Indeed laws have been passed to define this act that deprives no one of property* as "theft", but in the rational world this is no more "theft of service" than "intellectual property" is property.
* before anyone tries to argue the point, "lost potential revenue" is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a loss of "property".
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I'm one of those people.
Like the copyright debate regarding whether or not it's kosher to copy music/movies/whatever, if it's an artificial resource scarcity - we're probably not going to see things eye to eye.
As far as traversing someone's paid-for internet pipe, that involves significant risk of detection. Passively monitoring that sort of thing, that I have no problem with.
I find it much easier to talk about property rights when an actual physical item is present; food, a house, car, toys, clothes. These things must be protected for the sake of civilization. These other things - noise, pictures, patterns, ideas - these things can be provided to every human alive without depriving any other from having their own.
In regards to the law, these IP laws are not the product of the common man, they're the product of a select few with great influence. Therefore, while they technically exist - they don't represent consent by the governed. Inaction and silence do not represent consent either.
So. From a practical stance, how about we discuss how these systems can be *protected* from a realistic technical perspective. Because in the end, I think you'll find that placing sufficiently annoying technical boundaries in front of a person will make the monetary cost of the service more attractive than the costs involve in subverting the access control.
This does not, however, take into account the desire for corporate executives to beat their genitals over the heads of individuals who "steal" their service, hence the constant costly litigation. If it were legal to physically beat someone instead of suing them, they'd probably do it personally.
One only has to take a look at the legal system today to see why litigation and legislation are socially poor ways to enforce scarcity.
Bill
Every car produced in the US has the ability to exceed any posted speed limit. Every car maker makes a point of performance and the capabilities of the cars and even note the top speed and HP. Third party companies sell modifications that increase a cars performance even more. You can not assume just because you have a car that can break the law that you are guilty of speeding. You need to be caught in the act of speeding, burning out, or driving reckless. I can go online and tell stories of me driving 120MPH in a 65MPH zone and doing burnouts in my neighborhood and still not get a ticket because I was not caught in the act or even witnessed at the scene. I have a hard time understanding how these web sites that DTV is "monitoring" for activity and the selling of these products is any different.
"Oh, I can steal cable with this, I'll buy one" compared to "Oh, this will increase my top speed to 175MPH, I'll buy one" That does not mean I actually followed through with any of this and I may have never even opened the box or turned the TV on and watched anything without authorization.
You do not have to go to a sanctioned track once a year to justify owning a car that can break the speed limit.
Hell, you can buy Potassium Perchlorate, fine Aluminum powder, and some timed fuse legally online.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
It has nothing to do with HU being dead now. They are/were suing people for devices purchased (and supposedly used) years ago.
Not true. The point I was making was thier first argument was the monumental losses they incurred from piracy. They state "just look at all of the site distributing piracy equipment". This was one of thier strongest ways to win over a judge or jury. Now they lack this ability because the websites are for-the-most part gone. They cannot go into a judge and cry about the huge losses. Now it looks to a judge as big company laying the smack down on Joe consumer.
More importantly, also due to the SOLs (statute of limitations) occurring, they are finding that thier ability to sue is drying up. Therefore, they try to fix the PR by making the public think they are burying the hatchet with thier 'customers'. Why not go out with everyone thinking you arte the 'good guy'. No reason for folks to buy loaders anymore, so the SOL is catching up to them.
This timing has everything to do with the HU stream ending
The card reader I bought fills the same purpose as 90% of the other "cool technology crap" that I've purchased in the last decade. It sits in a box doing nothing.
Sure I had cool ideas for it when I saw how cheap they had gotten. Sure I bought the programmer from a less than reputable source. Sure I plugged it in and played with it for a few hours... Wrote some code. Tossed some ideas around... But it's just another unfinished project. Hell, you could say that I'm a collector of unfinished projects.
Maybe, but the reason that many people bought programmers with those capabilities was that those programmers were cheaper than programmers without those capabilities.
So now people should be sued for trying to save a buck?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Another problem is how they "investigate".
Almost a year ago Poulson told us, "Backed by a legion of lawyers and empowered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, former FBI agents in the company's Office of Signal Integrity have staged raids against businesses that deal in piracy equipment, seizing customer lists and inventory with armed law enforcement officers as backup."
He was not the only one to report that some of the lawsuits were filed against people who didn't even own a satellite dish. (I think Wired News also had an article about this, but I can't dig up the hyperlink at the moment. This boneheaded move predates Murdoch's takeover, by the way.)
I've been making friends and family aware of this fiasco ever since I first heard of it, hoping that none of them will reward with their business what could be described as "extortion".
I wish the names of those who made this decision could be posted somewhere, and archived, before they move on to other employers and continue spreading the contempt.
Of course, a company has every right to resist "criminal" acts. But there is good reason to believe, here, that this firm knew they'd cast the net too widely.
It smells like a money-grab - the easy way out (compared to seeking relief in criminal courts, where there are laws on the books to protect them from the real baddies).
By the same logic they could've been suing anyone who made anything that could have been used to facilitate the "theft". Charming.
<grrr>
I know this is a stretch to hope for, but might there be some actual lawyers around to clarify...?
To me this seems a contradiction in our justice system. Essentially, the US Govt declared OJ not guilty in one court, and then guilty in the second. I understand that it was two different court systems, one criminal and one civil, and that there's a different standard, "proven beyond doubt" vs. "preponderance of evidence". However both courts are still under the single system of the US Govt.
We also have the constitutionally provided right to not be tried twice for the same crime, or "double jeopardy". I guess what I don't understand is the legal or moral reasons why we allow these types of civil cases at all. To me, "not being tried twice" is a pretty simple concept. It sure is different from "we'll try you once, and if that doesn't work try you again in a second court that by the way has a lesser standard of guilt."
Especially when the punishments meted out are pretty much equivalent in terms of ruining someone's life. Owing someone millions of dollars that you'll never be able to pay off in your lifetime sounds just as bad (to me at least) as spending years in jail.
Anyway, just curious why that system is like it is.
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. Perhaps this is what happened, and nobody that was sued was not actually guilty. The truth of the matter is that probably 95% of those who bought the readers/writers/whatevers probably were doing so to circumvent DirecTV. The hardware bought for the most part weren't just generic smart card readers/writers, they were specially designed to be able to deal with DirecTV access cards. I'm not saying that what DirectTV did was right, but lets not paint a rosy picture of a bunch of victims.
That's an absurd notion. Just because something is marketed as being able to do something illegal has absoultely no merits on what one actually does with the product. Lets say for example that Beretta advertised their 92FS as being able to 'cap gang bitches with ease' or Ford advertised their F150 as 'being able to transport 1000lbs of drugs'? Just because the product was advertised as being able to do something illegal doesn't mean that I, Joe Blow Consumer, will do something illegal with it. The notion that a person wanting an unlooper for legit purposes will buy one from a company that doesn't advertise the product as being able to do something illegal is absurd. What if that company charged twice as much for the "legit" unlooper than the company that advertised all the illegal things it could do? Would you expect someone to pay twice as much for the same thing? That notion is absurd.
Legal fees for defense: $5,000+
Settlement payout: $3,000.
Take your pick. That is why many people settled.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Apparently they have technology to detect pirated cards and can shut them down via the satelite signal. I recall a Black Sunday event that they did just that, burned out the pirated cards or something like that.
I had to change one of my DirecTV cards recently, they sent me a new one and told me what to do to change cards. This helps them prevent theft.
As for the argumet that the signal is beamed into your skull, so is paying for a movie ticket and then claiming you have a right to videotape the movie. You are violating copyright laws by making an illegal copy for the purposes of using it later or selling it or distributing it. Just like those FBI Warnings on VHS tapes, for viewing purposes only, no recording. DirecTV subscribers have the right to decode the signal and make copies of broadcasts for viewing purposes, but not to spread around and sell, etc. If you do not have a DirecTV subscription, you do not have a right to their media, peroid.
Just like the Police 911 CB signals are also beamed into your skulls does not give you the right to broadcast on that signal.
Use common sense for once, seesh! Quit being such a cheapskate and actually pay for something for once.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Please, if you're going to make the argument, think it through. Decoding a satellite signal is not the same thing as:
eating the food in my fridge
using my telephone
not paying a cab fare
shoplifting DVDs
setting fire to pre-schools
dropping an atomic bomb on Hollywood*
Let's have a rational debate, please.
* I'm all in favor of nuking Hollywood, but this is for reasons unrelated to DirecTV hacking
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Uh, what you say is not true and bad legal advice.
First, if directTV sued you in Federal Court and the Federal Court decided that you met the requirements for personal jurisdiction in that forum, then any judgment against you is automatically valid in any state and enforceable in any state.
Second, by the Full Faith and Credit Credit clause of our Constitution (see Art. IV) a state has to recognize a judgment reached in another state (this is for cases in state court, not federal). So again, if a state has jurisdiction over you and a judgment is entered against you in a civil case (or any case) then even if you move (hence, flee) to another state, that state has to recognize and enforce the judgment against you.
So, what you say is not entirely true and misleading. IF you choose to ignore a civil case against you that is in another state, you better make sure that state does not have jurisdiction over you. Once a default judgment is declared against you, then the only issue you can contest later on is jurisdiction, not the merits of the case.
For legal issues, always seek a attorney...better safe than sorry
Some will say that a story like this renews their faith in the system. For me it reinforces the belief that the system is broken. Notice that our wonderful government, of the people, by the people and for the people, did absolutely nothing to step in and slap DirecTV down. It took a dedicated group of individuals and the money that others donated to support them. Without their intervention the government would have happily let DirecTV continue to act as judge, jury and cashier. Our civil legal system still works through trial by combat. Only the weapons have changed.
Actually, that sounds like a fair assumption to me if you believe in any sort of personal freedom. The question I would ask is: what obligates me to pay for it just because theyre paying to send it? Next your gonna tell me I have to make payments to God for use of the wind.
It is not my job, nor is it the governments job, to protect DirectTV's profit margins.
They are doing no such thing and I never said they were. The government is protecting their ability to profit from it the same way they protect other service providers ability to profit from their services because the ability to profit from services is good for society in general. Without that protection there is little incentive for people to provide those services and society must do without them.
The question I would ask is: what obligates me to pay for it just because theyre paying to send it?
Nothing is obligating you to pay for it. You either purchase the service or you don't. Whether or not enough people choose to purchase it determines whether they keep sending it. But that they are sending it does not give you any inherent right to use it without paying for it anymore than the fact that the bus is going that way anyway means you don't have to pay to ride.
Next your gonna tell me I have to make payments to God for use of the wind.
Oh give me a fucking break. DirecTV is not co-opting some natural occurance and charging you for something that you would have access to anyway. The wind would be there whether or not anyone chose to pay for it. The signal would disappear if nobody paid for it.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
The point is that the difference is pointless semantics
You obviously do not know the difference. By acquitting Simpson of the murder charges, the jury was, in effect, saying "we do not believe that there is enough evidence to assuage our doubt that he actively participated in killing these two individuals, or performed some intentional action or actions, with intent to kill, that led to their death.
By convicting him of wrongful death and more importantly two counts of battery (neither of which the original post bothered to mention, mind you) - one against Goldman, the other his wife, the jury was effectively saying "though you may not have killed them, you are responsible, to some degree, for the loss that the grieving relatives have suffered in the form of companionship and/or support."
In addition, if the original poster hadn't just been talking out of his ass, he'd have mentioned that in CA you can not have your pension garnered in order to pay on judgements against you, so Simpson stayed sitting pretty though he lost most of what he had previously collected.
I love how people take a position on shit like this, even though they obviously have paid absolutely no attention to it, and have no clue what they're talking about. I'm going to add this to the "McDonald's Lady Was Just An Idiot" story that keeps making the rounds among people who obviously have no fucking clue what actually happened before, during, or after the lawsuit. Just another example of someone with a soapbox that's just as empty as their damn head.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!