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. "

19 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. Innocent until proven guilty? by emf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Innocent until proven guilty? by strictnein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are using lawsuits, much like the RIAA/MPAA. You may very well be "innocent", but the costs of defending yourself in court are so high that it's just not worth it. For the companies the cost is minimal, as much of its work can be done in house by their teams of full time lawyers.

      It's an absolutely disgusting practice.

    2. Re:Innocent until proven guilty? by djaj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course you're innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law, that is. You'll have to spend a lot of money to get into that court of law, though. If you don't want DirecTV to force you into that court of law, and spend all that money, then you'll have to convince them that it isn't worth their money to do so.

      That's all this means. They're going to be slightly more careful in their extortion attempts.

      --

      Your mileage may vary, but mine is constant.

  2. Re:miscarriage? by tsg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. *sigh*......When will they learn?? by sage2k6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  4. Still guilty until proven innocent... by dobedobedew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:So... should i go with Dish Network by strictnein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  6. Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!!!!
  7. Re:Lawsuit! by dafoomie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Not good enough by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  9. Re:A step in the right direction, but... by Yewbert · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What still worries me about this a little bit:

    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.

  10. Re:There really is only one way to stop this by Young+Master+Ploppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:What are legitimate uses by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Lawsuit! by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Lawsuit! by RockDoggy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    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
  14. Re:But... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ya right... most people do not have the kind of money it takes to hire a lawyer... especially when it looks like a big bully with deep pockets is pushing you around. Hobbyist does not equal "rich person" (though there may be hobbyists who are well off). Even an average person can't afford to shell out a hundred or more dollars an hour it takes to hire a lawyer. This is why Direct was doing this. You seem to have too much money, and not enough thought.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  15. Re:Lawsuit! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You are not most people... this is what Direct' was counting on. However, you are in the right ballpark... there will always be someone who will eventually stand up. And it happened. And now Direct' has been stopped.

    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.
  16. Re:A step in the right direction, but... by nolife · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  17. Choose Verdict Terms Carefully by SeinJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The fact that a civil suit was won against him, after being found innocent, was disgusting.
    You're right, if OJ had been found innocent, it would be disgusting. The criminal verdict wasn't "innocent," it was "not guilty." There's a reason why the legal system uses such terminology. He was found not guilty of those charges because the jury didn't feel that the necessary proof was there. But being "not guilty" in one trial doesn't abjugate someone from all charges in the way that it would for one who is "innocent." That's why there is never an "innocent" verdict.