EFF Coordinates Fight Against DirecTV

wumarkus420 writes "In response to recent lawsuits filed by DirecTV against purchasers of smartcard equipment, the EFF and Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society have announced a new site devoted to the legal fight against DirecTV's aggressions. Hopefully, this new site will provide innocent consumers that have been threatened under the veil of the DMCA with professional legal advice and information."

Re:Oh, come on

[forand]

Did you read what the webpage is about? Here is a direct link if you couldn't find it from the links provided:
DirectTV Defense [directvdefense.org]
And just in case you don't read the article here is a little quote:

People who intercept DirectTV's satellite signal are breaking the law. However, DirecTV's cease and desist letter campaign does not distinguish the legitimate users from the thieves.

I hope this cleared things up.

Re:Oh, come on

[werwerf]

I agree

Here in Spain, pirate smartcards were rampant until the main dish company changed the technology (changing their smartcards) and killed the market.
The same thing happened in France...

Werwerf

There was a .SIG here, it is gone now...

Re:You can buy a gun without being branded a murde

[Anonymous Coward]

" People probably have a strong urge to pirate because it is quite frankly not worth the subscription fee most of the time"

These people were paying $30 a pop for the new card software images to get every channel. They could have paid $20 to get the standard 300 channels. Obviously they were just greedy and wanted HBO and the skin channels for free.

Re:You can buy a gun without being branded a murde

[fruey]

$20 for 300 channels? Wow it's not that cheap in Europe.

$30 for a card update? That's high too. Wasn't like that in Morocco ($2 an update). Did the update last over a month?

Furthermore

[Penguinshit]

DirecTV is suing Canadian citizens and attempting to disrupt information websites (presumably under the guise of the DMCA). What interesting about this is that DirecTV has no jurisdiction in Canada, as they have no presence there (they are not licensed to broadcast into Canada, which is what started this whole mess in the first place). Also, the DMCA does not apply to non-US citizens (although we've seen how well that's been applied in the Sklyarov case).

Right or wrong about the genesis of their actions (some folks really are intercepting DirecTV signal), DTV is just flat wrong about how they prosecute their case and need to be reigned back in.

Buy a Dish instead, yeah?

[corebreech]

The Dish Network is going to soon come out with the DishPVR 921 [tech-4-homes.com], a PVR that handles HDTV and *should* save the MPEG stream straight from the dish to the disk.

Yes, DirecTV is coming out with one too, and theirs is a joint venture with TiVo.

But you'll want Dish for the pr0n [dishnetwork.com].

Please, try not to put your foot in your mouth...

[WIAKywbfatw]

> half the population of Scotland

A nation the English have treated very well in the last few centuries. No wonder they weren't paying for overpriced satellite services. People with a lower median income than their neighbours will naturally not be as willing to pay as often for disposable entertainment. Blame that for the collapse of ITV rather than the piracy itself. It's not like most of those people would have actually paid for the service even if the piracy weren't relatively easy.

Jeez, where do I start? Where are you getting your in-depth knowledge of the relationship between Scotland and England from? Braveheart and Rob Roy? Have you even been to Britain?

"Lower median income than their neighbours"? Do you have any idea about how affluent cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh are compared to their counterparts in the north of England, say Newcastle, Sunderland and Carlisle? Have you even heard of Carlisle?

Anyone reading your post is left with the impression that the relationship between Scotland and England is like the relationship between Israel and the West Bank/Gaza Strip. The fact is, apart from a few minor differences, most of which favour the average Scotsman rather than the average Englishman (such as university education funding, legal procedures and house buying - all superior in Scotland) there are few differences between living in England and living in Scotland.

Next time, before you open your mouth about other cultures and societies, please have a clue about what you're talking about. It might help you come across as intelligent rather than stupid.

Re:Bahh!!! DirecTV has no case!

[Chazmyrr]

Except that stealing DirecTV only involves hacking your own box. You reprogram the smart card in the receiver to authorize any channel. It is easy/possible to decrypt the signal without using the phone jack. In fact, if you don't want to get caught, you better make sure that phone jack stays unplugged.

Think about it. If 3 million people were dialing up DirecTV and hacking their servers on a regular basis, don't you think there would be a lot more being done about it? Don't you think Hughes would already know who all the pirates are? All they would have to do is match the address the call came from against their billing database.

Radio Waves

[multipartmixed]

I don't know for sure if this is the same in the US (I think is), but in Canada it is perfectly legal to listen in on a private conversation whose radio waves enter your property (cell phone, cordless phone, baby monitor, whatever) -- as long as you neither use that information for personal gain nor divulge it to a third party.

Strange law, yes, pretty reasonable? I think so.

Re:Buy a Dish instead, yeah?

[wytcld]

Dish is a superior alternative, and should be rewarded for not acting like DirecTV (or your typical cable provider, for that matter). This reward is provisional, but there are other reasons to go with Dish:

1. Doesn't compress its signals as much as DirecTV.
2. Isn't owned by Murdoch (Mr. "Fair and Balanced"), but is run by Americans.
3. Offers good PVR's, and doesn't charge extra for using them like DirecTV does (you'll hardly notice it's not a Tivo).
4. Offers lower-priced basic service.

I'm quite happy with Dish so far.

Re:Furthermore

[tprime]

Actually, Bell ExpressVU has filed the lawsuit against the web sites and sales locations... They are claiming that the people who are pirating DTV are potential customers of ExpressVU and that they have lost revenue due to this. Similar tactics to the whole RIAA and MPAA thing. Most of the people in Canada would not have subscribed to ExpressVU anyway because their service is terrible. No real lost revenue there...

DoD Smart Cards

[darkstar949]

I find it hard to believe that DirecTV thinks that the only use for the Smart Cards is to steal satellite TV, when the cards are quickly growing in use on computer networks as a means of user login and digital signatures. In fact the DoD has acquired 2.4 million Common Access Cards (Modified Smart Cards that include a photo ID on the card) that are used on DoD computer networks. (Ref: Government Computer News, Vol 22 Num 14)

Actually, it isn't hard to handle this yourself in

[Anonymous Coward]

1) File an answer and deny the allegations that are not true. Admit the ones that are true. If you have any AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES , like part of the statute that says "it shall not be a violation of this section if [blank]" you must stat them in your answer such as if the statute says "this section shall not apply to use or possession by persons utilizing the card solely for use in [blank]" you need to state in your answer that you were doing exactly that.

2) Look up the law they are suing you under, and look at each specific "element" that is necessary for them to prove to win.

3) If they did not allege all the correct elements in their complaint (assuming at this state that EVERYTHING they say in the complaint is true at this state of the game), you file a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim" under rule 12(b)(6). There are many examples on the web. You state in the motion that "A claim under [statute] requires the elements of [1, 2, 3, 4 ...]. Plaintiff has not even alleged [xxxxxx] and thus their Complaint fails to properly state a claim.

4) if they properly alleged all the elements (they usually do) you don't get anywhere by filing a motion to dismiss. Instead file a "Motion for Summary Judgment" under rule 56. In it, you set out numbered statement of FACT (not opinion) and you MUST have a document or affidavit that supports each statement of FACT.

To respond to your motion, they must ALSO come up with hard FACTS and the EVIDENCE to back them up. In a motion for summary judgement, all FACTS you state and support with an affidavit or document, are ASSUMED TO BE TRUE by the court for that motion and it is THE OTHER PARTY'S BURDEN to find evidence and PRODUCE it to rebut them.

Most cases that do not settle are decided fairly early with either a Motion to Dismiss or a Motion for Summary Judgment.

For example, if the statute requires "intent" to use the card for unauthorized interception, the motion may be something like:

Defendant moves the Court to Grant Summary Judgment" pursuant to Rule 56 FCRP on the grounds that:

1. The card was purchased on [date] from [vendor] for [purpose].

2. At that time I was employed by [company] and my job included evaluating methods of security analysis for such and such project, and smart cards of the type I purchased were one such technology evaluated.

3. The card was purchased in my role as employee of [company] and used solely for the project [project].

4. The card was stored and used at the facilities of [company] at [address] and no where else at any time.

5. The card was never removed from the premises by me or anyone else.

6. At no time did I use the card, or intent to use the card in any way whatsoever to intercept, acquire, or otherwise use any broadcast or other content of a broadcast medium.

7. The use by me on the project [project] was [blank] [fill in here language that makes your use qualify for an exemption in the statute.

8. Plaintiff secured the names of purchases of these cards from various sellers, and has sued these purchasers without any inquiry whether some have legitimate and perfectly legal uses of the cards.

9. Plaintiff has brought this particular action without any inquiry into the relevant facts that make this possess/purchase by me legal.

Plaintiff requests a hearing on this motion at the earliest convenience. For the reasons state herein and supporting testimony, affidavits, and evidence, Defendant asks that summary judgment in his favor be Granted.

Then include a sworn affidavit that restates each necessary fact, and include documentation (like a copy of a W2 showing employment, etc.) Makes it look better.

You dress nice, and it will probably be heard in chambers by a magistrate judge. Calmly and simply state your case. DON'T get into back and forth with the other guy. Take notes and point out that YOUR affidavit is the only fact that sets out the relevant fact