Slashdot Mirror
DirecTV Extortion Program stopped by EFF
eticket writes "After several years of an Organized Extortion program DirecTV has been stopped by the EFF. As many of you may know DirecTV has been suing people who purchased card programers even if they had legitimate reasons for them. Many have settled to avoid legal issues. The problem was they had to prove innocence instead of DirecTV proving guilt. The only thing that DirecTV did was say they purchased the card programmer from a site that sold Satellite pirating equipment. Even though there are legitimate uses. Thanks to the EFF for stopping this horrible miscarriage of the legal system. "
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.
Hmmm.
I had to look this one up:
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:
"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.""
Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
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.
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?
Casual Games/Downloads
...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.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
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."
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
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?
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.
My rights don't need management.
Is everyone forgetting that DirecTV has effectively shut down the "pirates" (for now) by phasing out the last of the "hackable" smart cards? Between that and their soaring subscriber base (especially when compared to cable), it's no longer cost effective for them to continue with these tactics, nor is it worth the negative publicity. I'm all for the EFF, but if the RIAA found a way to stop 99.9% of file sharing, they'd drop their lawsuits too. Hate them all you want, but they are only fighting a perceived threat, using what they consider to be a deterent. If there's nothing left to deter, they aren't going to spend the money on it.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
As a business, the worst thing to do is to sue your own customers for some obscure reasons...... the same goes for RIAA!
-----
"If everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on." - Murphy's Law
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.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Directly from the article:
"If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases. EFF and CIS will monitor reports of this process to confirm that innocent device purchasers are having their cases dismissed."
So you are STILL guilty until proven innocent. This saga is not over yet.
Some people might not have even known that owning the cards were legal. When presented with such a demanding document to "settle or else" it makes most people scared. And you're right.. most people will settle just to make it go away... However, if you are under the impression that it's illegal to own such a device.. they have records you purchased it, etc.. Of course you would settle!
Hmmm.
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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.
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.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
But bootloaders and unloopers exist solely for the purpose of unscrambling satellite signals.
Arguments about "if the signal reaches my house I should be able to use it" aside, this is how the law stands, and that's who they should be after.
It's like the diffence between an xbox mod with a hardcoded version of a hacked MS bios vs doing it yourself with a blank EEPROM. The first is an infringement if it ships out with MS's IP (which is why all current mods ship out blank, or with cromwell), the second is just a stock part you can get at any decent electronics shop.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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...
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.
It's nice that DirecTV has agreed to restrain itself, but the REAL problem here is a legal system that allows a giant corporation to bankrupt and besmirch an individual without FIRST having to provide concrete proof that they have a case.
This is what DirecTV was doing, and it's what the RIAA is doing now. This has GOT to stop.
Corporatism != Free Market
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
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).
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.
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
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.
-This sig intentionally left blank
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
Another problem is how they "investigate".
Almost a year ago Poulson told us, "Backed by a legion of lawyers and empowered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, former FBI agents in the company's Office of Signal Integrity have staged raids against businesses that deal in piracy equipment, seizing customer lists and inventory with armed law enforcement officers as backup."
He was not the only one to report that some of the lawsuits were filed against people who didn't even own a satellite dish. (I think Wired News also had an article about this, but I can't dig up the hyperlink at the moment. This boneheaded move predates Murdoch's takeover, by the way.)
I've been making friends and family aware of this fiasco ever since I first heard of it, hoping that none of them will reward with their business what could be described as "extortion".
I wish the names of those who made this decision could be posted somewhere, and archived, before they move on to other employers and continue spreading the contempt.
Of course, a company has every right to resist "criminal" acts. But there is good reason to believe, here, that this firm knew they'd cast the net too widely.
It smells like a money-grab - the easy way out (compared to seeking relief in criminal courts, where there are laws on the books to protect them from the real baddies).
By the same logic they could've been suing anyone who made anything that could have been used to facilitate the "theft". Charming.
<grrr>
I know this is a stretch to hope for, but might there be some actual lawyers around to clarify...?
To me this seems a contradiction in our justice system. Essentially, the US Govt declared OJ not guilty in one court, and then guilty in the second. I understand that it was two different court systems, one criminal and one civil, and that there's a different standard, "proven beyond doubt" vs. "preponderance of evidence". However both courts are still under the single system of the US Govt.
We also have the constitutionally provided right to not be tried twice for the same crime, or "double jeopardy". I guess what I don't understand is the legal or moral reasons why we allow these types of civil cases at all. To me, "not being tried twice" is a pretty simple concept. It sure is different from "we'll try you once, and if that doesn't work try you again in a second court that by the way has a lesser standard of guilt."
Especially when the punishments meted out are pretty much equivalent in terms of ruining someone's life. Owing someone millions of dollars that you'll never be able to pay off in your lifetime sounds just as bad (to me at least) as spending years in jail.
Anyway, just curious why that system is like it is.
That's an absurd notion. Just because something is marketed as being able to do something illegal has absoultely no merits on what one actually does with the product. Lets say for example that Beretta advertised their 92FS as being able to 'cap gang bitches with ease' or Ford advertised their F150 as 'being able to transport 1000lbs of drugs'? Just because the product was advertised as being able to do something illegal doesn't mean that I, Joe Blow Consumer, will do something illegal with it. The notion that a person wanting an unlooper for legit purposes will buy one from a company that doesn't advertise the product as being able to do something illegal is absurd. What if that company charged twice as much for the "legit" unlooper than the company that advertised all the illegal things it could do? Would you expect someone to pay twice as much for the same thing? That notion is absurd.
Legal fees for defense: $5,000+
Settlement payout: $3,000.
Take your pick. That is why many people settled.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Apparently they have technology to detect pirated cards and can shut them down via the satelite signal. I recall a Black Sunday event that they did just that, burned out the pirated cards or something like that.
I had to change one of my DirecTV cards recently, they sent me a new one and told me what to do to change cards. This helps them prevent theft.
As for the argumet that the signal is beamed into your skull, so is paying for a movie ticket and then claiming you have a right to videotape the movie. You are violating copyright laws by making an illegal copy for the purposes of using it later or selling it or distributing it. Just like those FBI Warnings on VHS tapes, for viewing purposes only, no recording. DirecTV subscribers have the right to decode the signal and make copies of broadcasts for viewing purposes, but not to spread around and sell, etc. If you do not have a DirecTV subscription, you do not have a right to their media, peroid.
Just like the Police 911 CB signals are also beamed into your skulls does not give you the right to broadcast on that signal.
Use common sense for once, seesh! Quit being such a cheapskate and actually pay for something for once.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Please, if you're going to make the argument, think it through. Decoding a satellite signal is not the same thing as:
eating the food in my fridge
using my telephone
not paying a cab fare
shoplifting DVDs
setting fire to pre-schools
dropping an atomic bomb on Hollywood*
Let's have a rational debate, please.
* I'm all in favor of nuking Hollywood, but this is for reasons unrelated to DirecTV hacking
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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.
The point is that the difference is pointless semantics
You obviously do not know the difference. By acquitting Simpson of the murder charges, the jury was, in effect, saying "we do not believe that there is enough evidence to assuage our doubt that he actively participated in killing these two individuals, or performed some intentional action or actions, with intent to kill, that led to their death.
By convicting him of wrongful death and more importantly two counts of battery (neither of which the original post bothered to mention, mind you) - one against Goldman, the other his wife, the jury was effectively saying "though you may not have killed them, you are responsible, to some degree, for the loss that the grieving relatives have suffered in the form of companionship and/or support."
In addition, if the original poster hadn't just been talking out of his ass, he'd have mentioned that in CA you can not have your pension garnered in order to pay on judgements against you, so Simpson stayed sitting pretty though he lost most of what he had previously collected.
I love how people take a position on shit like this, even though they obviously have paid absolutely no attention to it, and have no clue what they're talking about. I'm going to add this to the "McDonald's Lady Was Just An Idiot" story that keeps making the rounds among people who obviously have no fucking clue what actually happened before, during, or after the lawsuit. Just another example of someone with a soapbox that's just as empty as their damn head.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!