DirecTV Sues Anyone Who Bought Smartcard Reader? 1072
MImeKillEr writes "The Register is reporting that DirecTV is suing anyone known to have purchased a smartcard programmer, regardless of whether or not they're actually using the device to enable stealing their programming. They're sending out letters & when people call to clear up the confusion, DirecTV is demanding a $3500 settlement as well as the programming device. They've filed 9000 federal lawsuits against alleged pirates thus far. They're obtaining lists of who purchased the devices during raids against the sites that offer them for sale."
This happend to my uncle (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know all the details but if it is the same thing as it sounds, then I don't think people have a lot to worry about.
They are gonna have a hard time.... (Score:4, Informative)
COD
John Smith
UPS Customer Counter - Hold for Pickup
(my local UPS counter addy)
Anyone who everr orderd a test card, set, etc., with a real addy and credit card is a moron.
Re:BARRATRY! ddi you read the article? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Newsflash: (Score:5, Informative)
Reader=Programmer
Programmer=Reader
A smartcard reader/programmer is nothing more than a voltage converter attached to a serial port.
The act of sending a command to the ISO card to get a response is the same as programming it. You either ask for a value in return, or you store a value in a specific location. The protocol method is the same in both cases.
There is no "high voltage" eeprom line to enable programming it (in this case at least)
The big difference is a DUMB ISO programmer (where the data lines are controlled by the PC) and a smart programmer where they have protocols embedded in the hardware ISO programmer to conform to ISO protocol standards. That's a different case all together...
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Informative)
To California lawyer Jeffrey Wilens, DirecTV's whole end-user campaign smells of extortion. Wilens filed a class action suit in Los Angeles last year accusing the company of exactly that. "Realizing that they don't have a legal position, they're just trying to use heavy-handed tactics to intimidate people, just like the record industry is going to be doing in the very near future," says Wilens. "At least the record industry will target people who `did it', instead of `could have done it.'"
But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles McCoy disagreed, and in April dismissed the suit, ruling that DirecTV's demand letters were sent in connection with litigation, and were therefore legally privileged. The judge also awarded attorney's fees to DirecTV, putting Wilens' seven plaintiffs on the hook for a total of nearly $100,000 in law firm billables.
Re:So who paid cash? (Score:5, Informative)
no it's not.
I have 2 smartcard programmers. Cince I have a side business of home automation I still support a few customers who use the old smartcard technology for home access. (The newer ones have moved to Ibuttons, more secure, better,cheaper,etc...)
So DirectTV can kiss my shiny metal ass. They are NOT getting my programmers.
I am sick of asshat companies like this trying to blanket cover everyone with X device as evil.
What about the computer security professionals or open source developers writing the smartcard parts of the linux login systems? what about the thousands of other people who have perfectly legitimate uses for a stack of blank smartcards and a programmer?
Direct TV... go to hell.
Re:If you can't do the time.... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, cocaine is still used as a painkiller by some dentists.
Website for targetted consumers (Score:5, Informative)
DTV sent out thousands of letters asking for the end user to settle out of court for $3500.00. If you ignore the letter, DTV sues you for $10,000.00 and gets a default judgement if you ignore that. Your best bet is to educate yourself (legal-rights.org, excellent place to start) and consult an attorney. A list of experienced attorneys is listed at legal-rights.org who have specifically dealt with these cases.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the Legal Papers Sent (Score:5, Informative)
I have placed scans of the 9 page pre-filing
that Directv sent him.
This is really a bad move, I'm hoping someone with some money to burn fights it since it's a DMCA issue.
http://www.chicago2600.net/directv/
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:5, Informative)
Some are fighting because DirecTV wants an admission of guilt, and some are fighting because they have ordered so much stuff, DirecTV's 'settlement' offer is still in the millions of dollars. Last, a few are fighting because they have the money (Dellionaires) and are fighting on priciple alone. However, for most people, simply paying the $3500 and walking away makes a lot more sense than fighting.
For the record, all of these lawsuits have been thrown out in California, and thrown out in such a way that they cannot be resubmitted by DirecTV. Apparently, the judge was offended by the audacity of the lack of evidence. The people who settled prior to the ruling have filed a class action lawsuit against DTV. One man has won his court case in Michigan (I think that's where) and all the other cases are still pending or have been settled out of court.
I know this was a joke (Score:5, Informative)
It actually won't interfere, criminal and civil court are seperate. You can clog up the civil court system with frivilous lawsuits, but the criminal system remains seperate.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't believe you're correct. The definiton of libel is:
1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
b. The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
Slander:
1. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone
DirecTV doesn't seem to have committed either crime. However this might be considered malicious prosecution:
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. While similar to the tort of abuse of process it is the misuse of a prior legal process (civil or criminal) that is dismissed in favor of the victim that was brought without probable cause with intentional malice by the defendant.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Informative)
We got one at work a while back, with a view to using them as a simple way of storing data for prepopulating and entry form for an application.
And yes - the same kit could be used for Satellite TV cards.
The proper course of action is to let them take you to court, then contest it on the basis that they have to prove that you have used the equipment to 'steal' their service.
IMHO. if they can't pay for their service through advertising, they're onto a loser, since it is almost always cheaper to circumvent protection measures than it is to pay exorbitant subscription fees.
Leeches.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL: Vexatious Litigant (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FUCK ME - PEOPLE ARE USELESS - RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe this qualifies as 'balls'. Next time RTFA, and keep your kneejerk reactions to yourself.
No, it's not... (Score:2, Informative)
This is not a case of barratry, because DTV is actually following through with the lawsuits.
Re:Newsflash: (Score:4, Informative)
Not necessarily, but it is true in this case. The "smart" programmers favored by DSS thieves have extra logic that glitches the card's supply voltage and clock line to circumvent the card's security. That is the major (legal) distinction.
One of my neighbors used to brag all the time about having this sort of setup, but he was none too happy when the sheriff's department nailed him for selling hacked cards and then turned over his customer list to DTV for lawsuit purposes. I guess there is justice in this world.
CD Burners (Score:2, Informative)
Those subsidies only apply to consumer audio recorders. Which is why you must buy an audio-CD-R for those devices instead of a generic CD-R. The generic ones are not tariffed, and therefore don't have the data written to them that identifies them as an audio-CD-R.
The CD-RW drive in your computer, and the generic CD-R media you use in it are not tariffed.
The tariff also doesn't apply to pro-audio CD recorders like this one [marantzpro.com]
Cable Industry does the same thing (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway this case might not be the same since I assume their might be other legal reason to own a smart card programmer(I know nothing about the topic). Be warned that the same doesn't go for the cable descramblers they sell on the net or where ever. If the place that sells them goes down, those who weren't smart enough to pay by money order and send to a fake address etc are going to go down as well.
Simple Solution (Score:2, Informative)
Don't ever, ever purchase DirecTV's service.
As a current subscriber I can honestly say it's marginal anyway and that I, especially in the light of this news, should've just gone cable, which I fully intend to do once my year's up.
* Extreme compression of the signal causes color distortion of the picture--i.e., it looks like you're always watching a JPEG image that's been set to "max compress, min quality" even if you've got a $1,000 TV.
* Even if you've got kids and you've set your filtering to block questionable content, after 11 p.m. you're still entreated to fun "Turn to channel 595 for the HOTTEST in adult entertainment" ads that, while not exactly scarring to your kids, can still leave you wishing you'd just ordered the frickin' basic cable service.
* Some little frickin' "i" information icon keeps on popping up on your picture all the damned time, in the off bet that while you're watching your program you'll be duped into pressing the "i" info button on your remote to get the latest fun DirecTV spam-on-request they want to force down your throats.
* Did I mention that the picture sucks?
* The extra channels are grouped far away from the main local channels forcing you to switch through a buttload of pay-per-view and premium channels in the hope that you'll want what it is that, once again, they wish to force down your throats.
And now, in addition to all the above fun, they threaten to sue you even if they have no proof that you've done anything wrong to violate their service
Advice: Skip DirecTV. They suck. And if you just choose to not sign up, you'll never have to worry about a possible lawsuit
Re:They are gonna have a hard time.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:5, Informative)
A friend of mine got laid off for a few months, and couldn't pay her DTV bill for the 4 legit boxes she had purchased and used in her home. When she got back to work and decided to have her service restored, she called DTV and the customer service rep. told her she'd have to pay $20 each for new smart cards (times 4 boxes) before they'd restore her service. She informed them all of those boxes were working *before* they cut her off, what changed? Once she got hostile with the rep. he admitted she really didn't need new cards and turned her service back on. I wondered then how many other folks paid the $20 per card just to get service back? (Note this was in addition to the "reconnect fee" she did have to pay.)
Re:Target card (Score:4, Informative)
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:2, Informative)
(1) There is probable cause. Federal statutes prohibit the possession of "Pirate Devices" (see 47 U.S.C. section 521 et. seq. and 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq.). There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices. The fact that a small percentage of buyers did use them some people use them for legit purposes does not change the fact that virtually all of the purchasers were stealing signals.
(2) Intentional malice is going to be impossible to prove. Does Directv give a damn about any of these people, except for the information that they uncovered in busting the distributors? No. There's no malice.
Lovely slashbot crying. Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief. Sure. Whatever.
Re:No, it's not... (Score:4, Informative)
The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
has nothing to do wiht the follow-through, just the instigation of groundless lawsuits
They have to serve you. Throw away any letter. (Score:1, Informative)
It costs from $80 to $300 to serve process. I doubt they intend to do it for all these people.
Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:2, Informative)
Heh, old news ... to me anyways. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IANAL: Vexatious Litigant (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:1, Informative)
That's the law as I remember it in law school.
It's a civil trial (Score:2, Informative)
And therefore it's not an issue of guilt versus innocence. DTV only needs to have a "preponderance of evidence" to win, and they have the right to call you as a witness.
So, yes, you must effectively prove your innocence in civil court.
These are not all normal programmers (Score:5, Informative)
Rule 11 (Score:5, Informative)
Federal rules of civil procedure, Rule 11 [cornell.edu]
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
People are too intimidated by lawsuits, and it's a crime that they let companies like DirectTV bully them into forking over a few grand. Of course, it's also pretty awful that to defend themselves against this kind of thing would probably cost $10k+...
Re:Typical reporting from the Register (Score:3, Informative)
And you can find a translation guide here [accomodata.co.uk].
A few facts from the article (Score:5, Informative)
In that particular case, the article also notes, the judge ruled that because the letters were sent in connection with litigation, they were subject to legal privilege. The case is currently being appealed. With one exception, the article doesn't note whether the people concerned did anything like writing to DirecTV before taking them to court in the class action suit.
Incidentally, for anyone else who didn't RTFA, there are also mentions of several innocent users who have successfully fought this, amusingly including a guy whom the judge decided was an unlikely culprit, given that he didn't even own a satellite dish.
Re:CD Burners (Score:2, Informative)
CD-Rs are ALREADY too expensive in Canada.. a 10 pack of CD-Rs will set you back ~CDN$10, 25 pack of CD-Rs will set you back ~CDN$20, a 50 pack ~CDN$35-40.
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml [neil.eton.ca]
Canadian retailers aren't happy either, and big names like Wal-mart Canada and Radio Shack Canada are apart of the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access [ccfda.ca].
Let DirecTV know how you feel (Score:3, Informative)
Contact information, lifted from that letter (Score:3, Informative)
End User Development Group
Office Hours: 6:30 am to 6:00 pm, Pacific Standard time [9:30am-9pm EST]
310-964-5424
"Hello, this is [real name] from [home]. I am a DIRECTV customer. I noticed that you have filed some lawsuits against people who own smart card programmers. I own one of these because I am the CIO of [company], a fast-growth security company focused on finding alternatives to biometric identification, which we view as a horrific invasion of privacy. Are you going to sue me, and if so, should I cancel my DIRECTV service now?"
"Hello, this is [real name] from [home]. I am a DIRECTV customer. I saw on the news that you filed some lawsuits against people who own smart card readers. I also saw that these lawsuits were tossed out of court in California, and that one target has won his case so far in Michigan. I will not support a company that engages in barratry of this order; I'm switching to cable. So long, suckers."
"Hello, this is [real name] from [home]. I'm an English teacher, and I'd just like to let your lawyers know that you made a heinous grammatical error in your Draft Complaint for Compensatory, Statuatory, and Other Damages, and for Injunctive Relief which you sent out to people who bought smart card programmers. On page 4, clause 7, line 3, you write 'principle design and intent'. You of course meant to write 'princiPAL', p-a-l, rather than p-l-e -- I'll leave the dictionary work to your experienced lawyers. Also, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to smart card programming devices as 'Pirate Access Devices', as you do on page 3, clause 4, lines 2 through 3. This euphemism has already been reserved by portholes, which go in the sides of ships. Even in the colloquial sense (from Princeton WordNet pirate, verb, to illegally copy published material), I doubt that one can illegally copy satellite signals which are already being beamed into every head in the continental United States without our consent. Have a nice day, and good luck with those nasty pirates. Arr, matey."
Just suggestions, of course.Re:A few facts from the article (Score:2, Informative)
Not just websites advertising piracy devices (Score:3, Informative)
I have contacted two attorneys who both feel I have a strong case. In fact the emulator board is still sealed in its original plastic, never been opened. I have never stolen DTV or attempted too.
I have been lied to every step of the way by agents of their "End User Development Group" who repeatedly told me that just owning these devices was completely illegal and that federal judges had already ruled that mere possession was illegal. When I explained my legitimate use for these devices I was told that ignorance (i am not makeing this up) is not legal defense in the US. Anyone still feeling sympathetic towards DTV?
More DIRECTV Hijinks (Score:1, Informative)
From: http://www.geocities.com/foogert99 [geocities.com]
Submitted to Slashdot, rejected many times...Re:Unfortunately.. (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem. Excuse me? I think you meant Not yet hacked in the public domain... The history of this hobby will show you that a new hack doesn't usually show it's face on the scene until there is some sort of significant problem with the current hack. When "Black Sunday" occurred back in 2001, all those former H card users were fodder for the sale of the new HU hack. As it turned out, the H card was revived with the advent of the bootloader, but the HU hack was out. Kind of conveinent that it showed up right when people needed it most, eh?
Currently, the HU hack is safe, more or less. Nothing major seems to be on the horizon, and there is no "write-once" area on the HU as there was on the H, thus no "Black Sunday;" well, at least not via that same method. The only real threat to the HU hack currently is the HU swap out: customers receiving P4 cards to replace their HU cards. Once DTV believes that they have sucessfully replaced the majority of their customers' cards with P4's, they flip the switch and start removing HU authorizations packets from the stream. After that, the HU is a nice ice-scraper, more or less. And amazingly, mark my words, the P4 will miraculously be hacked! What luck!! Get a clue guys, its already done; its just a closely held secret until the masses need it most. Supply and demand folks.
Only after the HU runs into a problem will the P4 hack become public. It's just a matter of time. Thus, your statement regarding the P4 being unhackable... Yeah, just like the H was claimed to be when it replaced the F card, and just like the HU was claimed to be when it replaced the H card. Bollocks sir, pure bollocks.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:3, Informative)
I wasn't talking the decoder, only the smartcard reader/programmer. As for the analogy;
I have several IBM thin clients that use smartcards containing a bootable BSD kernel to load an image from an AS/400. They are pretty much the same card that DirectTV uses. Reader/programmers are expensive, and if this reader/programmer were cheaper than one I already have, then I might pick one up and save myself some money.
Irrelevant that they could be used to reprogram DirectTV cards, that's not what I intended them to be used for. I'm just cashing in on a cheap deal for a tool I use quite a bit.
Now, if I got a cease and desist letter from DirectTV, I'd be rather unhappy about it. I bought it legally, I use it in a legal manner, piss off!
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:4, Informative)
So, stating that you think someone is a thief because they are known to own a device that is used primarily for illicit purposes is probably protected.
But simply stating "I think you are a child molester" without anything more (i.e. any known true facts that might support this opinion) could easily be the basis for a defamation claim.
This is a very gross generalization and will vary among jurisdictions.
Re:Take it from someone who knows (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:1, Informative)
So many points, so little time (Score:4, Informative)
I did quite a bit of reading and luckily, there are quite a few victories against DTV now. I learned the following points which are very important.
1) DTV is suing based only on the purchase of a smart card programmer.
2) DTV never does any additional research to determine whether the named defendant could or is stealing the satellite signal.
3) DTV verbally assures you that purchase and/or possession is enough proof.
4) Every judge so far has disagreed and ruled in favor of the defendant who fights the lawsuit.
5) DTV wins a lot of default judgments because defendants ignore the lawsuit.
6) DTV includes a claim that it can sue you under a federal criminal law. Judges have ruled every time that this is not true and dismiss this claim.
The fact is, DTV is losing in every single case where someone fights it. Why? Because they only have the purchase records for a smart card programmer. This is not enough legally.
As everyone has already said, DTV is setting the settlement amount so that people will settle instead of pay more to an attorney. I personally dispute this conclusion, as many experienced attorneys can now make this go away for a lot less than $3,500.
And lest you think I am just one of those guilty people who wants to fight, I will add a little fact to the details. I live in Europe. That's right. If DTV sues me, they have a little problem proving that I stole their signal because it is completely IMPOSSIBLE! But they have another little problem. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will let me get quite some money if they sue me with such a frivolous lawsuit. Ya see, DTV doesn't know something else about me. I'm a pissed off attorney right now.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:3, Informative)
Put another way, if a secretary stuck the letter in the envelope, the company might as well have put a gun to their heads and pulled the trigger, assuming that these claims really are false in a majority of cases. Of course, if most of these people really were stealing service, then that's another issue. This still strikes me as legally questionable behavior for a company to do something like this, though....