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. "

Comments

Lawsuit!

[Mz6]

IANAL, so, the obvious question that arises is... Will those that settled be able to turn around and sue DirecTV? I know they settled, however, when they signed the settlement paperwork it was under false pretenses. Meaning that the people that bought the equipment probably thought it was illegal (at the time) to own it and settled to avoid further prosecution. I'm sure many didn't bother to contact a lawyer to determine their rights, but after such a change in policy I could see it happening. I mean DirecTV all but admitted that they were going after these people that might have had legitimate uses for it.

Re:Lawsuit!

[LostCluster]

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. :)

Re:Lawsuit!

[gfxguy]

YAINAL, but settling does not mean admitting guilt. I present to you all of Microsoft's settlements over the years. They never admitted any wrongdoing.

Re:Lawsuit!

[dafoomie]

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.

Re:Lawsuit!

[paranode]

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.

Re:Lawsuit!

[gcaseye6677]

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.

Re:Lawsuit!

[RockDoggy]

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.

Re:Lawsuit!

[rnicey]

Bit fuddy of you.

You don't have to travel out of state if you don't want to. What jurisdiction does an out of state court have over you? You have a couple of options.

a) Mail in a motion to dismiss and ask that because of it's trivial nature you'd like to participate over the phone. It doesn't take a lawyer to fill out that form in most states.

b) If (a) fails, or if you can't be bothered travelling to another state let them get their judgement. It's a worthless piece of paper, they have to come to your state to collect and they need to go before a local judge to enforce an out of state order. Thats when you can defend yourself much better.

For example I just had somebody sue me in CA and the FL judge wiped his arse with it. Doesn't even touch your credit either.

Let them get on a plane and come to you. Chances are they won't bother.

Bottom line. A good lawyer would have no problems with a suit like this.

Re:Lawsuit!

[theshowmecanuck]

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.

Re:Lawsuit!

[sunking2]

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.

Re:Lawsuit!

[aeryn_sunn]

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

Re:Lawsuit!

[reve]

> IAALBIANYL--GYOGDL,YMNO

I am a lawyer but i am not your lawyer -- get your own god damn lawyer, you... mother nookin' orangutan?

Help me out here.

miscarriage?

[ack154]

Thanks to the EFF for stopping this horrible miscarriage of the legal system.

I had to look this one up:

miscarriage - (mskrj, ms-kr-) n.

1. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus. Also called spontaneous abortion.
2. 1. Bad administration; mismanagement. 2. A failure of administration or management: a miscarriage of justice.

That just sounded like really strange wording to me, but I guess I just don't have that broad of a vocabulary.

Also - DirecTV isn't STOPPING it's hunt... they're merely modifying it:

satellite television giant DirecTV has agreed to modify its nationwide campaign against signal piracy in order to reduce threats and lawsuits against innocent users of smart card technology

Re:miscarriage?

[LostCluster]

Yes, but the anti-DirecTV stand in this case wasn't that DirecTV had no right to sue people pirating their signal... it was that DirecTV needed a higher level of evidence than what they were using in order to go after a defendant in many cases.

If DirecTV sticks to the modifications mentioned in the release, most of the complaints are going to be cleared up and DirecTV's accusations should only be going to people who they have a decent chance of winning a ruling against.

Re:miscarriage?

[tsg]

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.

Re:miscarriage?

[untaken_name]

One of the funniest things about this quote is the number of people who use it....and don't know anything about it. Not much use arguing about the exact wording, or who it's attributed to. No one seems to know for sure. There have been at least 4 different versions attributed to Mark Twain, a few to Abraham Lincoln and others to various other people. The best guess for the 'origin' (first record *I* can find, anyhow, which doesn't mean it is the absolute origin) is Proverbs 17:28 - Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
No matter what your views on the truth of the bible, that Solomon guy sure had some intelligent observations attributed to him.

Re:miscarriage?

[Goobermunch]

I'm not sure this is such a great deal for the people.

DirecTV will now drop its suits if the end user provides enough evidence of their innocence. DirecTV doesn't specify a quanta of proof, but we can assume that it will be whatever DirecTV wants it to be.

In a court, DirecTV would have the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence. In effect, DirecTV would have to prove that it is more probable than not that these users were pirating their signal.

Given the fact that DirecTV based its claims solely on the possession of a smart card encoder or emulator (or other technology), these cases wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a motion for summary judgment.

Thus, DirecTV loses in court.

I'm sure someone will complain about legal fees though. Here's the thing: In most states, and in the Federal system, it's possible to obtain sanctions for pleadings filed in bad faith.

In this case, there's a solid argument to be made that filing a suit based merely on possession of otherwise legal equipment is . . . wait for it . . . bad faith.

This isn't to say that what the EFF did isn't a good thing, but at the end of the day, it didn't save any of these victims either.

--AC

Re:miscarriage?

[dont_think_twice]

It's not unreasonable for them to look for people that are actually pirating the signal.

Actually, by any sensible standard, it is unreasonable. DirectTV launches satelites which send electromagnetic radiation into my house, and then they tell me that I am not allowed to use that radiation unless I pay them. DirectTV can encrypt the radiation, they can make it very difficult for me to decrypt it by scattering it over the spectrum, they can do whatever they want to prevent me from reading it. But they do not have the right to tell me that I cannot read the radiation that exists within my house. Period. The fact that the government has passed laws that allow them to do exactly this just shows how stupid our government is.

Re:miscarriage?

[Lost Engineer]

I beg to differ and agree with the grandparent. It is not my job, nor is it the governments job, to protect DirectTV's profit margins. Satellite pirates cutting into your profits? Too bad. Your encryption can be broken by any script kiddie with a credit card? Sucks, don't it.

The assumption that you are somehow entitled to use that signal simply because it exists is specious.

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.

Re:miscarriage?

[tsg]

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.

A step in the right direction, but...

[UnCivil Liberty]

"The company will no longer pursue people solely for purchasing smart card readers, writers, general-purpose programmers, and general-purpose emulators. It will maintain this policy into the forseeable future and file lawsuits only against people it suspects of actually pirating its satellite signal. DirecTV will, however, continue to investigate purchasers of devices that are often primarily designed for satellite signal interception, nicknamed "bootloaders" and "unloopers.""

Re:A step in the right direction, but...

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

Why shouldn't they investigate? It is surely within their rights to see if they can stop a policy that they believe is hurting their business. Whether or not they have a case is another matter, but just because they believe in limiting the rights of others does not mean they don't get the same rights as everyone else.

Re:A step in the right direction, but...

[XMyth]

The problem is whether or not they actually investigate. In the past DTV's methods of investigation is

1. Send out extortion letters (170,000 of these mind you) demanding ~ $3500 settlement or $10,000 lawsuit.
2. X% of letters result in settlement of $3500. Lets say 5% settled.
3. $2,975,000 (minus overhead) PROFIT!

Re:A step in the right direction, but...

[Yewbert]

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.

Re:A step in the right direction, but...

[nolife]

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.

Nice spin from the EFF as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Buried deep in the press release:

DirecTV will, however, continue to investigate purchasers of devices that are often primarily designed for satellite signal interception, nicknamed "bootloaders" and "unloopers."

Doesn't sound like DirecTV will be cowing to anyone's demands.

Also, smart quotes are stupid in MS Word, and they are stupid in Unix documents.

Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual

[stratjakt]

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.

Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual

[XMyth]

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.

Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual

[whoever57]

But bootloaders and unloopers exist solely for the purpose of unscrambling satellite signals.

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?

Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual

[macdaddy]

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.

Innocent until proven guilty?

[emf]

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.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[strictnein]

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.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[djaj]

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.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[LostCluster]

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...

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[base3]

Until someone whose life they ruined goes in and shoots up one of their offices. Not that I'd ever advocate violence against agents of such a company, but there is nothing more scary than someone with nothing to lose who's been wronged.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[tsg]

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?

Technically, it's not a criminal case, but a civil case. Civil cases are decided on "preponderance of the evidence". "Innocent until proven guilty" is only for criminal cases. The plus side is that the accusation "he has the technology to pirate the signal, therefore he has pirated the signal" is easily refuted by showing a legitimate use for the technology. But, our legal system being as it is, it's usually much cheaper for the defendant to settle the case than to fight it, which is what witch hunts like these (and, oh, the RIAA comes to mind) rely on.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[Trepalium]

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.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[EinarH]

Isn't this an obvious sign that it is something wrong with the legal system since the system does not account for any of the financial differences between Joe Smart Card and megacorp?

The only way it makes sence is if one think about the megacorp as a person who is accidentally richer.

Justice for all..with money.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty?

[tsg]

Isn't this an obvious sign that it is something wrong with the legal system since the system does not account for any of the financial differences between Joe Smart Card and megacorp?

Absolutely, and that's what the argument is about. Joe Smart Card finds himself on the end of a lawsuit which will cost him a ton of money even if he wins. It's the cost of the legal process which makes this kind of extortion possible. Some people have suggested a system where the loser pays the winner's legal fees, but there are problems with that also. Someone with a legitimate but hard-to-prove claim may not have the financial resources to risk losing.

So... should i go with Dish Network

[strictnein]

As someone is the market for cable/satellite service I had been looking for a way to really differentiate between Dish Network and DirectTV. I think my decision has now been made. Or, does Dish Network also like to sue people?

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[strictnein]

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).

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[TGK]

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.

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[strictnein]

Dish Network owns Directv

Uhmm... no they don't.

Dish Network == EchoStar
DirecTv == Rupert Murdoch (and friends)

If I recall, they tried to merge awhile back, but were not allowed to.

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[silas_moeckel]

Dish Network's customer services is horid and they like to charge and hold onto funds forever. There compression quality is pretty bad as well as compared to Directv. In my own case I got the equipment and service from directv got the install signal strength in the 90's good line of sight etc all with a 30 day no penalties right of return. Well there compression is horid it's as bad as my local cables digital offerings or directv's local channels. So I called up to retunr it. That took nearly two hours mid afternoon on a weekday between operators that insisted I had a year contract etc etc etc, a manager finialy honored there contract and accepted the cancelation and told me to call the installer to pick up the gear. Funny the installed didn't want to and took 3 weeks to do so even leaving me the dish on the roof. 3 months later a funny charge showed up on the plastic I used to setup the account for like 400 ish from them. I called and it tooks hours and hours with them insisting that I broke contract. I had to fax them the recipt for the returned equipment and my contract with the 30 day return 3 seperate times. They then claimed that I didn't realy cancle till the equipment was picked up not when I called them so was over the 30 days and still owed them. A round with my credit card company and the BBB finialy got it resolved and a credit nearly 4 months after they charged it.

I have had Directv for six years now and have never had those issues. One bad tivo in shipping but nothing like this experience. I'm comparing service on a wide screen CRT and DLP rear screen and dish has much more noticable compression artifacts to my eye. Directv I beleive has the ability to alocate varing ammounts of bandwith on a per channel basis where dish is fixed meaning that cnn dosent look as good as HBO but who cares about CNN but your HBO HD should look great.

Again this is just the comments of one person with a bad experience with dish.

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[Dun Malg]

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.

DirecTV doesn't have a problem with piracy right now. They shut down the entire P3 series of cards (the hackable ones) and there is no known hack for the P4 or higher cards. Currently there are hacks for Dish.

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[Anonymous Coward]

Dish network are assholes too.

They advertise HD receivers on their website, so I called to order one. I was told that there were none in stock, and that the price might vary, but they would take my order and call me when one was available.

I received the phone call - good - and then they wanted to make an appointment to install it. I told them I didn't need it installed, just ship it. They said no, they only sell them under their conditions, which requires a year's subscription to their HD programming, signing up for automatic payments (direct debit of credit card or bank account), and giving up the old receiver to be replaced by the HD receiver.

I said no, I had just ordered a receiver, I wasn't interested in their special deal, just charge me the full price listed on their website, which I had agreed to when ordering, and just ship the receiver. No way, won't do that.

So I complained to a whole range of people, each passing me off to someone else. Eventually I spoke to someone int marketing, who promissed faithfully thast someone who had authority to vary their policies would call back - no call.

So I looked up the phone number of EchoStar's general council and called him. He had left early, so I settled for talking to a lwayer in their legal department. I explained that we had a contract - they advertised a product with a price, I gad agreed to pay that price, and they had agreed to deliver, and I wanted them to uphold their end of the contract.

He understood completely what I was taling about, and promissed to get back to me. 10 days later I am still waiting.

I checked with a local Dish reseller, he is not allowed to sell a receiver to me. He can only sell into new accounts. Existing accounts have to be handled directly by Dish, who are building up local centers full of Dish employees to handle the work. They are trying hard to be just like a cable company, just no cables involved. He claimed that the reason was that they wanted to control the installations to stop people being able to pick up the receiver and take it with them to the beach house (or wherever) - they want to ensure they get that extra revenue!

I am SERIOUSLY thinking of just forgetting Dish and going 4DTV - the equipment is more expensive/clunky and it needas a big dish, but at least the quality of the signals is MUCH higher.

I am also considering sueing Dish for breach of contract...

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[Ath]

You think so? Then you never had to deal with News Corp. They are a bunch of blood sucking assholes that would rather drag you through hell than admit wrongdoing.

There is a reason they are despised in every industry they are in. Rupert Murdoch is a major asshole and everyone knows it. I am pretty sure he prides himself on it.#

I think DirecTV knew from the beginning that there was about a 1-2 year life span on their approach of threatening lawsuits. Once they started filing them, people were going to fight those lawsuits. Judges across the company have started throwing many of the claims out from the very start. And once cases got to discovery like depositions or even trial, DirecTV had absolutely no case because they never once could provide any evidence that a person was pirating their signal.

Case law was pretty clear. Even possession of devices which allowed an individual to pirate signals is not sufficient. They have to prove actual usage (and therefore theft). Besides the fact that a smartcard programmer doesn't do anything by itself. You still needed a computer, advanced software to program DirecTV's cards along with the personal knowledge how to do it all.

Currently, no one can pirate their signal so I am sure that factored into their change of approach too.

But it definitely was not the love of good old News Corp that brought this shit to an end.

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[wintermind]

Your home-owners' association cannot (under most circumstances) prohibit your placement of a dish under one meter (39.37") in diameter: Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule. I understand that you may not want to get into a confrontation with the local Neighborhood Nazis, but you do have rights that they cannot curtail even with a written neighborhood code.

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[LostCluster]

Matt Groening later admited that Fox News never threatened to sue, he was just joking. Fox News all along claimed that there was no lawsuit threatened...

The apparent source of all of this was that the show got a "network note" about one of their scripts that mentioned a news ticker underneath Kent Brockman pointing out that if they were going to do that, they'd have to make the headlines funny enough such that somebody just tuning in would not confuse it with the real Fox News ticker. The Simpsons staff thought that was a little overprotective... like they'd put anything that could be mistaken for real in such a ticker.

Re:So... should i go with Dish Network

[warrax_666]

[...] to make the headlines funny enough such that somebody just tuning in would not confuse it with the real Fox News ticker.

Hehe, maybe they thought that the fact that the news was being presented by a cartoon character wouldn't be enough indication that the ticker was not real.

While this is certainly a good start...

[Dagny Taggert]

...I believe it's long overdue. What relief do those who settled now get? IANAL, but I don't believe they can sue over a settled case. DirecTV got what they wanted; they threw a scare into potential pirates. Do you think they care about what little PR they're going to get over this? Of course not; it'll blow over by tomorrow and we'll move on to the next miscarriage of justice.

sad...

[tuxette]

I find it appalling that people nowdays act in a manner to prove not innocence, but their lack of guilt, rather than put their feet down and say "I'm innocent until proven guilty, and if you think I'm guilty then it's your job to prove it."

What are legitimate uses

[Matt2k]

Clearly, I don't believe that 170,000 people bought card programmers just to play with the technology, but surely some percentage of those users purchased them for uses other than piracy-- however as a someone who has no experience with DirecTV, I can't imagine what they are?

So what exactly are the legitimate uses of having a card programmer?

Re:What are legitimate uses

[MindNumbingOblivion]

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.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[liquidsin]

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.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[Rat's_ass_donor]

I agree. The tiny handful of people who have used their programmers for useful, creative purposes won't find it difficult to prove that this is the case. And I think there's a decent chance that in such cases, a painless settlement would result.

But suggesting that drug possession isn't legal evidence of drug use (because I might be a researcher working on coccaine addiction, bringing materials to my lab) would be... counterproductive.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[awkScooby]

So what exactly are the legitimate uses of having a card programmer?

A smart card is like a compact flash card in that you can store data on it. The difference is that your reader must communicate with an embedded microcontroller on the card instead of directly with the memory. The microcontroller can control how you access the data which is stored on the card.

A great use of smart cards is in computer security. You can have keys stored on the smart card which are usable by a user (typically a pin, or password is required) but can't be stolen out of the card. The private key never touches the computer which the smart card is plugged into, so it's safe to use even on a compromised system.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[Steve Cox]

> If you stand outside my house and throw rolls of
> quarters through my window, I'm keeping them, so
> fuck you.

Damn right. They would help pay for the broken glass.

Steve.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[arch17c7]

Legitimate uses mainly focus on authentication devices for access to computer systems. I currently teach Network Administration, and have several smart card "devices" that are used in class demonstrations concerning security issues. The use of these devices for DirecTV piracy involves flashing chips in order to load the software necessary to interact with DirecTV's systems. Since I bought these devices, I have been waiting for a letter from them, but nothing yet.

However, as one who does read quite a bit about smart cards and such, I find it somewhat amusing that DirecTV agreed to this AFTER they performed a huge card swap and shut down the data stream for their P3 cards, the most popular hacked card they had. There are no programs out there that can hack the newer cards... yet. Oh, and BTW, I am a subscriber and have been for years, so I have little reason to hack DirecTV, just in case their lawyers stumble across /.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[general_re]

Oh, for fucks sake, it's NOT stealing.

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.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[telemonster]

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.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[GPLDAN]

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.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[ratboy666]

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.

Re:What are legitimate uses

[Dun Malg]

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.

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".

Re:What are legitimate uses

[Wanderer1]

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

Re:What are legitimate uses

[ivan256]

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.

Stopping such nonsense

[earthforce_1]

The best way to stop such DMCA nonsense is not in the courts, it is by grassroots public awareness. If somebody tries to sell you a DirectTV subscription, or a Lexmark printer (with DMCA protected non-3rd party ink cartridges) let them know exactly why you will not purchase it. If they hear it more than once or twice, this will work its way back to headquarters. Eventually the execs will clue in that they are pissing off enough potential customers that they will back off, even if the law was on their side.

Re:Stopping such nonsense

[Matt2k]

That's an excellent idea. After the incident with the Belkin home routers redirecting HTTP traffic to an advertisement for some services, I was in a Fry's a month or two later where the salesman tried to sell me one. He was very insistent on the Belkin products. I explained why I wouldn't purchase a Belkin product again, and he sort of nodded resignedly towards his feet and agreed.

A little too much credit

[tbase]

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.

*sigh*......When will they learn??

[sage2k6]

As a business, the worst thing to do is to sue your own customers for some obscure reasons...... the same goes for RIAA!

Backing off because of of the end of older cards?

[FerretFrottage]

Perhaps Directv is backing off a bit now that they have ended/replaced the easily hackable older cards (h and hu/p3 cards). I'm sure that once the newer cards are hacked and these hacked cards fall into the hands of signal stealers, Directv will become more offensive minded again.

Still guilty until proven innocent...

[dobedobedew]

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.

But...

[Mz6]

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!

Re:But...

[general_re]

Except if I do something illegal, it's between the government and myself, not between a third party and myself...

Not at all - if your illegal act has the effect of harming some third party, you may very well face civil damage claims from those third parties, as well as the ususal criminal penalties. Ron Goldman's parents did successfully sue OJ Simpson, after all.

Re:But...

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Right, DirectTV is filing their claims under tort law, not criminal law. DirectTV is not accusing the defendant of necessarily breaking any laws, only that they were harmed as a result of the defendant's action. Remember when OJ was found not guilty at criminal court, then later was found responsible at civil court?

That's another reason defendants in these cases may have been urged to settle: civil trials are held to a much lower standard of proof than criminal trials are. "Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt", only applies to criminal charges.

/not a lawyer

Re:But...

[theshowmecanuck]

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.

Re:But...

[general_re]

As someone pointed out elsewhere on the thread, that's simply a result of the differing standards of legal proof in civil versus criminal courts. In terms of the burden of proof, it's much easier to sue someone that it is to prosecute them. If the OJ example offends you, I'm sure you can think of analogues to illustrate the point some other way, though ;)

Re:But...

[skifreak87]

It's your fault if you take the word of someone suing you. I'm sorry, I don't think what DirectTV is doing is right (should be illegal, IMHO, to bring about lawsuits if you have no evidence supporting your claims), but the first thing you should do if sued is contact a lawyer. You can countersue for legal fees if their case is weak enough (IANAL, i don't know the specific requirements). Settling w/out first talking to a lawyer is a recipe for letting yourself be fucked, so don't do it. I can't imagine people who are spending disposable income on these devices don't have the cash to get a tiny bit of legal advice before signing a settlement agreement, and I have very little sympathy for people who let themselves get bullied around b/c they didn't know or even try and find out if they weren't breaking the law.

Re:But...

[copypaste]

Hypothetically, if I AM using the equipment to pirate the signal and I get sued, how can I get in on this "legitimate use" gravy train?

Re:But...

[WNight]

Unfortunately the US legal system is next to worthless these days. If you don't settle, and quickly - not enough time to properly investigate the issue - DirectTV hit you with a high-dollar case and enough paperwork to choke a horse. A lawyer, or anyone with ready access to one, might be able to fight. Anyone else just got run over.

It simply isn't possible to represent yourself, especially on a budget.

Partly because HU's are dead...

[Dun Malg]

I suspect part of the reason DirecTV has softened on this is that the particular series of access cards these programmers were designed to hack are no longer functional. In mid-april DirecTV switched from the older encryption stream decoded by the (hackable) P3 cards to the new encryption only decodable by the P4 or higher series. They figured that few enough legit customers were still running on old P3 cards (they'd been sending P4's to all subscribers with P3's for months) that they could safely shut down the old cards entirely. So DirecTV promising not to be so heavy-handed in the future is a moot point. Anyone buying a smartcard programmer to hack DirecTV now is an idiot throwing their money away.

Re:Partly because HU's are dead...

[stratjakt]

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.

Re:Partly because HU's are dead...

[tbase]

And I really don't see what's so wrong with me in MD wanting to watch the local news from CA.

That's actually not what they're worried about. Your local CBS affiliate wants you to only be able to watch Wheel of Fortune on their channel, because if you can get the California feed, you might decide to watch it at 10:00pm local time on the Cali station instead of at 7:00pm on their station, thereby robbing them of ratings and ad revenue.

More choices are only good for the consumer, which is why businesses tend to fight anything that gives you more options.

Quite the coincidence, eh?

[javab0y]

Everyone thinks this is due to the EFF's hard work. As much as I have great respect for the EFF and honor thier initiatives, this deceision was not due to thier hard work.

DirecTV swapped out thier P3 cards and shut down mass piracy in April. They have sued over 24000 people. With piracy down to 0 for them, they will have a hard time convincing courts since thier arguments are not nearly as strong without all of those web sites hawking hacked cards. I think this agreement to be a "kinder and gentler DirecTV " is purely due to them cleaning up the stream, and not the hard work of the EFF. If there were still 1000s of hacked cards out there, rest assured, DirecTV would continue its extortion campaign.

Re:Quite the coincidence, eh?

[javab0y]

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

not a coincident

[supergwiz]

DTV has recently shut down the HU stream, the only hackable signal thus killing the demand for these equipment. This PR throwing a meanless bone, in reality it is no longer a significant concern for them anymore.

Re:Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

206.14.210.244

There really is only one way to stop this

[ShatteredDream]

In the military you are held accountable for what your subordinates do. Unless they make a conscious, conspiratorial effort to keep you out of the loop, you are presumed to know what they are doing. In other words, 999 out of 1000 cases, a noncom or officer is presumed to know exactly what they are doing. Therefore they are held responsible if they are violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unlike the civilian world, in the military world, the buck stops with whoever is in charge where the violation was occurring, and damage can spill over into higher ranking personnel.

The only way to stop stuff like this is to apply that standard to the civilian business world on criminal activity. Don't punish the stockholders by fining the company because Mr. Big Rich White CEO claims he didn't know what was going on. Bullshit, he was hired specifically to know what at a minimum his underlings were doing. 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." The JAG would laugh his ass off as military police escorted at least the lt. and probably the major too off to a brig.

Personal responsibility is out of style in America today. We want power, but so many don't want the responsibilities that come with it. Look at the female general who is trying to cry like a little girl that she "didn't know that the abuse was going on in Abu Ghraib." Bullshit. With a command that small in such tight quarters you'd have to know. Let the DirecTV executives get hit directly instead of the company and that will scare off anyone that would follow in their footsteps.

Re:There really is only one way to stop this

[Young Master Ploppy]

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?

You know what Im sick of?

[TEMM]

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? They are beamed to everyone in north america/world... Basically the phrase stealing satellite signals could be applied to someone who has a dish on their roof, but no decoder, since they are collecting the satellite signals.... I mean really, its not stealing the signals, its illegally decoding the signal that the problem...

Re:You know what Im sick of?

[tsg]

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.

Signal interception and trespassing

[Webmoth]

So... if DirecTV sues me for interception and theft of their broadcast signal, can I countersue them for trespassing?

After all, their signal is entering my property without permission.

OK, so maybe that's a bit far-fetched. Nonetheless, their signal is broadcast, I cannot help but intercept it. Anytime I stand outside, their signal is bombarding my body. Why should it be illegal for me to interpret a signal that I am receiving?

Why not just to play?

[Sycraft-fu]

I've debated getting one to screw around with. No real reason, just because I think smart cards are neat. We have them on our university IDs for holding money and to ID ourselves to some kinds of computers (like Sunblades). I think it's an interesting technology, so I've debated getting a reader/writer and a couple of cards to mess with.

Also if I were going to do access control for anything, smart card technology would be the first place I'd look. It is FAR more secure than something like magnetic stripe and allegedly more reliable. If I had a bussiness that needed key-type access restrictions to rooms or computers or the like, I'd probably try and do it with smartcards.

And before someone asks, I have cable so I'm wouldn't even able to intercept the DirectTV signal without other hardware.

Re:Why not just to play?

[Dun Malg]

Also if I were going to do access control for anything, smart card technology would be the first place I'd look. It is FAR more secure than something like magnetic stripe and allegedly more reliable. If I had a bussiness that needed key-type access restrictions to rooms or computers or the like, I'd probably try and do it with smartcards.

SmartCards are overkill for straight access control. Unless you're controlling access to encrypted data by keeping a very large key on the card itself, all you need is a unique identifier. Most card-based access control is done with prox cards nowadays. The days of having to stick a card in a slot or swipe one through a reader to open doors are over. The advantages of prox cards are numerous: You can mount the reader at [pocket|purse] level by the door so one doesn't even need to get the card out of one's wallet to enter. You can hide the reader behind a stucco or wood surface of an exterior wall redering it nearly impervious to vandalism. Prox cards aren't susceptible to physical deterioration of the electrical contacts or exposed magnetic stripe.

can someone go after auto insurance next?

[kulakovich]

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

Not good enough

[WCMI92]

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.

Re:Not good enough

[WCMI92]

" We need a no bs law.

If someone threats to sue someone or asks for a settlement, that someone should be able to call "bullshit". And if they can't prove their case in a court of law, they must pay fines. I know one can countersue, but they actually have to sue you first."

How about a law that forces a corporation to pay the legal fees of a non-corporation defendant in civil matters (which then can be added to the judgement if the defendant wins)?

That would stop such harassment actions cold, as corps would be less liely to pursue meritless cases...

In criminal cases you are entitled to legal representation, whether you can afford it or not. That right does not exist in the civil courts. I think it should, and I think the initiator, if not an individual or a non-incorporated entity should have to bear the burden, not the state.

Re:Not good enough

[Mr Smidge]

corps would be less liely to pursue meritless cases...

It would be good, but it wouldn't stop corporations for suing for loads of things that 'should' be legal but are made illegal under bad laws..

"We're going to beam this signal right at your house, whether you like it or not. Whether you intercept the signal doesn't actually affect the signal in any way. But you can't decode it, no, that's theft of service."

And the US (and the EU too if we're unlucky) doesn't exactly have a shortage of bad laws. DMCA, this "Theft of service" shit, PATRIOT act, etc.

I can name legitimate uses for chip cards

[SpaghettiPattern]

• Tooth picking.
• Opening doors when you're a detective.
• Sorting coke in lines for scientific purposes.
• Collectors items.
• Killer circling weapon it you're James Bond.
• Put in mount and make funny faces.
• Pretend to be a dandy with loads of credit cards.
• Screw driver.
• Wear in the heart region as bullet protection.
• Glue spreader.

How to get Direct/RIAA to pay for your litigation

[jbs0902]

The main problem w/ a suit like this is that it doesn't matter who is legally correct. Direct/RIAA just assume that they can afford the frivolous suit and you can't. That you'll panic a fold. And this is true in most cases. However, if you can front the money, and win I have a suggestion on how you can make Direct/RIAA pay for your litigation costs in the end (i.e. make the court work as a loser-pays system), assuming you're in Federal court.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) allow for you to make a settlement offer, and if rejected the rejector may have to pay your legal fees.

Rule 68. Offer of Judgment
At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer . The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability. (emphasis added)

So, as soon as you get the "we're suing" papers, and you are completely, "no F'ing way" innocent make a Offer in Judgment of $1. If Direct/RIAA takes the $1 offer, your legal worries are over. If they don't take the offer, you go to trial knowing that if you win, Direct/RIAA must pay your legal fees (from the offer forward).
Now you pay up front while they sue you and it takes your time, but ultimately you get the cash back (provided you win).

well duh

[Ancodia]

Of course they stopped. DTV killed of the HU cards a couple months ago. The 'unloopers' (those things DTV was suing everyone over - they were used to get into the HU card to program it) are now useless since the current DTV card is unaffected by them. Nice spin though, if you didn't know better you might actually believe the EFF accomplished something.

Re:well duh

[BrK]

Your lack of understanding of these lawsuits is monumental.

DirecTV is/was suing people who purchased practically any bit of smartcard equipment from dealers (not just unloopers).

Their lawsuits were vaguely worded (other than the parts about them demanding $10,000 fines *per device purchased*. A passive PCB purchase landed you a $10K "fine".

DirecTVs actions took advantage of the fact that most people would be either too scared, or lacking the funding, to fight their corporate lawyer army.

The lawsuits even covered people who purchased equipment from the H-Card era, it has nothing to do with them shutting down the HU streams.

Re:And stealing from DirecTV isn't illegal either.

[emtboy9]

I personally find it difficult to draw any real compairson between DirecTV and RIAA, other than the fact they sue their users.

There is a BIG difference here between the two. Stealing music is one thing. You actively go to a website or P2P network specifically to find a particular song/album, and then actively download it. In other words, its a pull.

Getting DirecTV is, ultimately no different than getting your local channels via the old rabbit ears. DirecTV beams that signal with a VERY wide footprint to the earth, using RF. Its really silly to tell someone that they are not allowd to recieve a RF signal that is being sent directly to your house.

They are using regulations that were put up to prevent cable theft (again, not the same thing as simply recieving RF signals from an orbiting satellite) to ensure a revenue stream. Satellite is a push, not a pull. That data is pushed directly to your property, you dont pull it to you.

Cable theft is again different as well, as you plug a device directly to the cable company's property (the cable line) and actively pull data from their equipment to your television.

Now, if the wanted to sue someone, they could base it on a breech of contract for using a non-directTV provided card, or for opening the case of the reciever, or something of that nature (which would require writing such language into the contract, but suing somenone for using equipment that they purchased, not leased, to recieve a signal that is already being pushed to their house is ludicrous.

God bless the EFF.

It's still guilty until proven innocent...

[yeremein]

It's still guilty until proven innocent. The only thing that's changed is that DirecTV says they'll supposedly listen to claims of innocence rather than plugging their ears and humming "la, la, I can't hear you, pirate".

... DirecTV will, however, continue to investigate purchasers of devices that are often primarily designed for satellite signal interception, nicknamed "bootloaders" and "unloopers."

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.

Some progress has been made, but not nearly enough. DirecTV will still threaten people for mere possession of devices, and you're at their mercy as to what constitutes "sufficient evidence" that you didn't steal their signal.

What signal theft? EM ripples are property?

[Morgaine]

... use their devices for signal theft ...

This whole business of "signal theft" is getting out of hand. The signal was theirs only as long as it was in their circuits, as it could be said that the electrons in their equipment are their personal property.

But the electromagnetic waves induced in space by their transmitters, how the hell can they be property? OK, maybe they induce the near-field boundary disturbance directly, but beyond that the wave is self-inducing and self-propagating.

If the EM signal that reaches my house is indeed their property, what the hell is it doing entering my property without my permission? If they have the right to sue for signal theft, then I have the right to sue for trespass. :-)

It just goes to show that the law is a real ass when it comes to technology. "Signal theft" and "music piracy" both rank among the top legal idiocies of the modern age.

Re:A [goose]step in the right direction

[Grrr]

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>

This is what I've never understood...

[AgentTim3]

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.

Re:This is what I've never understood...

[general_re]

Essentially, the US Govt declared OJ not guilty in one court, and then guilty in the second.

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.

Re:This is what I've never understood...

[egriebel]

We also have the constitutionally provided right to not be tried twice for the same crime, or "double jeopardy".... 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."

Great concept, not a knock on the original poster, but criminal then civil trial is becoming a more common tactic for when the original prosecution fails to prove their case. Or, what should be a clear-cut case of a violation of the fifth amendment, the practice of trial for the original crime then a second one for violating the victim's civil rights. Both of which are criminal prosecutions for the same crime.

Legal Extortion

[doormat]

Legal fees for defense: $5,000+
Settlement payout: $3,000.

Take your pick. That is why many people settled.

Re:Legal Extortion

[Sigma 7]

Legal fees for defense: $5,000+
Settlement payout: $3,000.

Take your pick. That is why many people settled.

I'm honestly quite suprised that these defandants didn't see that it was possible to force the plaintiff to play the legal fees. The lawyers will still get their huge cheques, but it won't be at the expense of an "innocent bystander".

Certain places have drafted laws to make abuse of the legal system a criminal and civil offence, where damages can be levied against a plaintiff producing bogus or groundless claims. In fact, this should be one of the first things that should cross the defandant's minds when consulting with their lawyer - while it won't always be successful, there is a significant change that it will work, especially when combined with existing rulings from other judges stating that the claims were illegitimate.

Does it really matter?

[Orion Blastar]

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.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Mr Smidge]

they sent me a new one and told me what to do to change cards. This helps them prevent theft.

Theft? People steal the cards now? That's the only physical property you've mentioned that is capable of being removed from them.

Oh, you're supporting their false "theft of property equals infringement" line...

so is paying for a movie ticket and then claiming you have a right to videotape the movie.

I paid to watch the movie, and for that amount of money I paid over, I am 'expected' to just watch the movie and not record it. I'm pretty much under their control, and in their cinema, so they can enforce their (legally-bound) rules. If I don't like it, I don't have to pay for the ticket.

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.

Two scenarios to contrast with my previous paragraph "I paid to watch the movie...":

1) I've paid to watch their content, and for that amount of money I've paid over, I'm expected to watch it, possibly timeshift, and not broadcast it myself. I'm not at all under their control, I'm in my house, I'm just obliged to not infringe their legal copyright. If I don't like it, I didn't have to get a subscription.

2) I haven't paid to watch their content, and since I've paid over no money, I'm not expected to watch it, even though they're beaming it right at me. I'm not under their control at all, I'm in my house, and I shouldn't infringe their copyright.

I'd be infringing copyright if I re-broadcast the signal again, but strangely enough, we're not talking about that. Re-broadcasting the signal around outside of your house is illegal and (some would say) ethically wrong.

However, since intercepting the signal that they beam directly into my skull neither diminishes the strength of the signal nor affects the broadcasting end in any way, what I do with the signal, should I choose to intercept it, has no effect on them whatsoever.

I should be able to do whatever the hell I like with it, but if I re-broadcast it outside of my house, then I'm infringing copyright. I am generally in favour of copyright, and try as much as possible not to infringe it, but I should have every right to decode that signal they're sending me.

Putting such restrictions on a broadcast signal is a flawed concept. There is no technical means to put any such limitation on it, because logically if there is a way to decode it, and the source signal is always the same, then anybody could do it if they knew the method.

Use common sense for once, seesh!

The corporate solution is to use illogical laws that go against all common sense (yes, that's what common sense is) to create nonsensical artificial barriers that they can use to gain more revenue.

This may pass as a law, making it 'legal', but it's a bad law.

Here's my bottom line:
Assuming that a reasonable and sensible set of laws are in place (such as that of making illegal the infringement of copyright by re-broadcasting or re-distributing copyrighted works, perhaps), then if they knowingly send it right to me, I should be able to do whatever the hell I like with it.

Spurious Comparisons

[Dun Malg]

Why is it that people can't accept that hacking DTV broadcasts doesn't directly cost them any money? I swear, every time the subject comes up someone counters the "no diminishment of property" with a crackhead comparison like: "so if it's OK to decode satellite signals, you shouldn't mind if I come into your house and murder you in your sleep-- after all, it's the same thing!"
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

How exactly ISN'T this extortion anymore now?

[D4C5CE]

BLACKMAIL - A criminal act of extortion, malicious threatening to do injury to another to compel him to do an act against his will.

(The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon on Blackmail, i.e. 258 N.W. 62, 65 AFAIK)

Thus the crime is not just about forcing someone to pay money (anymore). So how doesn't purposefully making allegations which are known to be at least partially unfounded (i.e. with respect to some or all of the recipients of these threats), and forcing the victims to expend time, effort (and even still quite possibly money) to prove their innocence fall foul of this definition?

Choose Verdict Terms Carefully

[SeinJunkie]

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.

And this just in...

[LostCluster]

The EFF has just added on another story on the topic... an Appeals Court has just ruled that showing a defendant has DirecTV hacking equipment isn't enough to create liablity. DirecTV needs to bring evidence that the devices were actually used to steal DirecTV's services sucessfully.

Hit 'em where it hurts

[JonnyO]

DirecTV, aka DAVE, will continue their witchhunt until it is no longer a viable source of revenue. That includes the toll they incur for any negative press on their actions.

Not that we are totally without recourse. I took great joy in personally killing a six-digit contract that Hughes Network Systems was virtually guaranteed to win because of their sister divison's actions. The salesperson probably has a picture of me on his dartboard thanks to the smirk I wore when I told him the fate of the deal he thought was a slam dunk.

Supporting the ACLU and the EFF is all well and good, but derailing the money train is a far more effective tool for getting a company's attention. It also feels pretty good, too.

Support the EFF

[cascadefx]

It is tax deductible. You can support them HERE. I did.

you don't understand double jeopardy

[drewness]

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."

Read the actual amendment.
(From Cornell's US Constitution page)

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

He was not "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". It says nothing about civil trials.

Like how you don't know what you're talking about?

[the_mad_poster]

.. illustrated so many different things that are wrong with our media-infatuated legal system.

For example, the fact that people like you apparently don't understand the difference between homicide and wrongful death, or the difference between criminal and civil proceedings and judgements, but feel obligated to talk about them anyway because you were allowed to be a third party participant via CourtTV. Maybe you should take a basic Civics class before you try to analyze a court system you are obviously 100% clueless about. Just a thought...

Gladiatorial Combat

[serutan]

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.

Re:Gladiatorial Combat

[jc2000]

DirecTV had already been told by the courts dozens of times that it needed evidence of actual interception, not just evidence of possession. So it isn't giving up anything by making the agreement with the EFF. We'll just have to see whether it changes its intimidating, aggressive, accusatory collection practices.

Re:Like how you don't know what you're talking abo

[the_mad_poster]

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.

Not like it matters

[Rhyas]

They already made their money. They used their size to ream the pockets of thousands of people for way more than they ever would have made, even if the users HAD been paying for service. They've nearly completed the rollout of their latest SmartCard, which has no public hacks available for it, and have all but eliminated the old streams, leaving no hacking left to do at this point for the average joe. They have absolutely nothing to lose by pulling this PR stunt, because they're DONE. Game Over. Dave Wins.

Re:The CRUX of the problem

[Desirsar]

"And even then, the innocent defendent doesn't get their attorney fees paid for by the plaintiff. If even 1% of these thousands that were sued were innocent, that's too much!"

That depends on which state you're in. A lot of states not only automatically award legal costs to a winning defendant, but also damages for wasting their time, depending on the result and type of lawsuit.

Proposed reply to future extortion letters

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"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.

Yep, that's what it sounds like.

How about sending this in reply:

Gentlemen:

I received your letter of [date], in which you noted that I had purchased a smartcard programmer which may be capable of modifying your client's smartcards' programming to recieve your client's services without paying for them, and asking me for proof that I was not using it for that purpose.

I can assure you that I am not, and do not intend to, use the programmer for such a purpose.

As to "providing you proof" to that effect, I consider the development projects I have undertaken, or may undertake in the future, to proprietary. Accordingly I do not intend to reveal their nature to uninvolved third parties. I understand that, if your client believes that I am intercepting the premium programming part of his signal without paying, the burden of proof to that effect is on you, not on me.

However, if you wish to assure yourselves that I am not intercepting your programming, here is a counteroffer which your client may find satisfactory:

Upon reciept of reimbursement for the original purchase and instalation price of the satellite receivers and antenna systems (plus shipping costs), I will remove them from service and ship them, along with the associated smartcards, to your client, and terminate my service contract with your client's company. (I will require thirty days notice before the termination of service, so that I might arrange replacement service with Dish Network, my local cable company, or another of your client's competitors.)

I will, of course, retain the smartcard programmer.

Please indicate whether your client wishes to:
a) accept this counteroffer, or
b) drop the issue and waive any future action (absent a showing of evidence of actual signal interception on my part, rather than merely the ABILITY to so intercept.)

I would appreciate a reply within thirty days. I will entertain acceptance of the counteroffer at a later date, but may ask for more than 30 days before service termination in order that vacation scheduling would not be impacted.

Finally: Does your client wish to be offered a similar repurchase option when I eventually terminate my service at some future date (in lieu of my reusing the components of the then-useless receivers and/or antenna system for some other project)?

sincerely
[me]