Slashdot Log In
DirecTV Sues Anyone Who Bought Smartcard Reader?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Jul 17, 2003 02:10 PM
from the absolutely-insane dept.
from the absolutely-insane dept.
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This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
DirecTV Sues Anyone Who Bought Smartcard Reader?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1072 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
BARRATRY! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://grendel.dyndns.org/)
--grendel drago
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Interesting)
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, Insightful)
1) Owning a smart card programmer absolutley does NOT mean that you stole a signal any more than owning a car is indisputable proof that you are a drunk driver, so the letters that have been sent to people do contain false statements.
2) Being accused of a felony IS damaging to a persons reputation.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Insightful)
(https://www.carpanet.net/)
Now, if they published these letters on their website, or released the names of all the people that they were accusing to the local paper, that would fit.
Basically...if I ring your doorbell and when you answer I tell you "I think you are a souless satan worshipping ballbag" thats nothing (well maybe harrassment or tresspassing if I don't leave when you tell me to).
but if I go to your neibors door and when he answers I tell him you are a soulless satan worshipping ballbag...thats slander.
If I take an ad out in the paper and tell the readershoip that you are a soulless satan worshipping ballbag... thats libel.
See?
-Steve
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~Greedo/journal | Last Journal: Thursday February 12 2004, @10:27AM)
The suit is in the public record, so then it's libel (assuming you really are innocent).
If enough people have the cojones to ignore the threats, then DirectTV will have to show it's cards or STFU.
Actually, it still comes back to barratry, I think. Like another poster said, this is no different than someone suing you for drunk driving because they have a record of you buying a car. The one doesn't imply the other. And, even if I were a drunk driver, they can't search me based on the fact that I bought a car.
Okay, the analogy is getting weak, but doesn't this all boil down to just legal intimidation
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:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Yes there is. The device is used for legitimate purposes. If DirecTV wants to eliminate the doubt, they should use a proprietary technology or card design. They use an open standard that is in use in other industries and then wonder when people can get their hands on equipment to steal it? That is (somewhat) like using philips head screws to secure your home and then not expecting anyone to have a philips head screwdriver.
Lovely slashbot crying. Everyone is suddenly a legitimate smart card hacker and not a thief. Sure. Whatever.
There you are dead on.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:4, Funny)
Just because a knife can be used to kill someone, doesn't mean it's a MURDER DEVICE. So why is a smart card programmer a PIRATE DEVICE?
The only Pirate Devices I don't think I could argue the definition of woul be a Parrot, a Wooden Leg, an Eye Patch, a Funny hat with skull and cross bones, a wine bottle wrapped in dried grasses, a sword, potentially a mustache? No, some people own parrots and aren't pirates at all, so there goes that too.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://burntheflag.ca/)
That's just what they want you to think.
Re: Probable cause. (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought a reader and a number of crypto cards directly from a manufacturer, as part of a Linux SDK kit.
I have never owned a dish system. I have continuously had a cable TV connection in my current resident (close to 10 years), a townhouse oriented in a manner that would make it difficult to set up a dish.
I have been involved in Unix/Linux security systems for a number of years.
I have discussed X.509 certificate authorities countless times in the past, and suggested that crypto cards would be good root certificates for small CAs. (The private key never leaves the cards, when you don't need them you toss them into a safe or safety deposit box, etc.)
Now tell me again where there is any probable cause in my case. I haven't gotten that letter yet, but if I do I'll demand the court award them to compensate me for any and all defense costs because there isn't a shred of probable cause in my case.
To be honest, I was surprised to learn that the dish systems use the same cards I had already purchased for use in experimenting with setting up a PAM module to recognize smart cards - I want something a lot like Solaris where you have to insert the card and enter your passphrase, and when you yank your card out you're automatically logged out. In the long run, it would also be nice to be able to store SSH RSA/DSA keys on the card, etc.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.ronfrazier.net/)
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:A few facts from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.angelfire.com/ct/datafage)
Re:A few facts from the article (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you feel the system is working if any company can bring suit against everyone who could have gotten free service?
Yes, I guess that makes sense. Think of the wonderful future in store for us. One where eveyone has a few days a year scheduled in court to prove they aren't breaking the law. And if you can't prove it, I guess it's just your bad luck.
Re:A few facts from the article (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday January 25 2006, @09:09PM)
That is the type of attitude that bothers me. Since you love the system so much I hope they sue you. You can accrue the thousands upon thousands of dollars in lawyers fees it takes to prove you are innocent and have no need in paying the $3,500 fine.
But defending a case costs money, and critics of DirecTV's campaign say that people have been paying the $3,500 settlement, guilty or innocent, simply because they can't afford a lawyer.
Nice working system you support!
The company won't say how many cases it's dropped, but Zakarian and Apgood both say they've negotiated dismissals. In every case, though, the innocent defendant is left holding the bag for their attorney fees.
I am happy to know you are so supportive of this type of action!
I am happy to know you support large companies blindly suing everyone without investigative work.
I am happy to know you support large companies intentionally sending out letters that incurage people, who might have done nothing wrong, to pay a fine or pay hefty court costs to defend themselves!
I am happy to know you support the little guys getting squashed so that DirecTV can gain a few extra dollars.
I personally thing it is horrible and have set my sights on never using DirectTV but then again I actually care about those people who are trampled by DirectTV.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.bjtuna.net/)
Yeah well if the Queen had balls, she'd be king. Companies are out to make money -- it's what they do. You think DTV was started for the common good of mankind?
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, there are many legitimate reasons, but it sure doesn't cover a lot of the garbage that they are into these days, and it seems to me that "revocation of corporate charter for not contributing substantially to society" should be put back on the books. Under that law a corporation must periodically prove that it's existence is a net benefit to society.
(I forget the exact phrasing, and the exact terms used...but corporations used to have a very conditional existence.)
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, Interesting)
(http://antiwar.com/)
Well I for one would be happy to pay for advertising-free TV.
But the greed here is incredible. Where do people get this notion that they have a legally enforceable right to make a profit off a bad business model?
DTV has several options as I see them. They can write off the 'pirating' as inevitable and ignore it, concentrating on sucking the honest customers dry. They can change their offerings to compete better with the 'pirate' offers. Or they can use cartooneys to threaten everyone in sight hoping this will somehow make them more money than it costs.
Apparently they're choosing door number 3, which I think is pretty dumb, but not surprising really.
If I were them I'd try something a little more creative. What is the draw to the 'pirate' cards? You get access to whatever channels you want, for a one-time fee, instead of paying out the ass for the super-deluxe top of the line package every month just for the one channel you actually watch, am I right?
Plus there is the element of everyone wanting to feel like they're the smart one, getting the forbidden fruit cheap while the other chumps pay big bucks month after month... I'm sure that's an element.
Now remember, these 'pirates' are paying, they're just paying lump sums instead of recurring fees, and they're paying them to someone else. That's the problem, from DTVs point of view, if they would just look at it clearly.
So, what I would do if I were them, is just start a little subsidiary. Hide the ownership, yo don't have to do anything illegal, just the kind of obfuscation any corporate lawyer or accountant knows how to do, so that it's not obvious. Have this little subsidiary get into the pirate card business. Have your techs working on breaking pirate cards, of course, as they've done all along. But have your techs and your subsidiary work together, so that most of the time when you break the other pirate cards those sold by your subsidiary don't break. Still break them sometimes, of course, so you get a round of upgrade sales, but make sure your own cards get the reputation for being the ones that usually don't break.
Pretty soon, not only are you getting the regular fees from your ordinary subscribers, you also own the pirate decoder market as well. Now remember, they're working in a market where most of the costs are fixed. It costs them the same amount to run that programming whether they have 1 subscriber or one million subscribers. They have the exact same costs whether there are no 'pirates' or 10 or 100 or a million as well. So this extra income is pure gravy.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:4, Interesting)
If they are asking the State to press a criminal case against you, then yes. They could never reach the standard of proof needed for the case to even see the inside of a court room.
However, if this is being brought as a civil suit, the standards of proof are not so high.
Unfortunately.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://dana.hutchins.org/)
...it appears that abuse and extortion are what our legal system is all about. Its not about justice, its about who has the deeper pockets.
"Send lawyers, guns and money..."
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:Unfortunately.. (Score:4, Informative)
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: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:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two outcomes:
1) DirectTV loses, pays the costs, says to it's lawyers, "Bad show, guys", and moves on.
2) The individual loses, is now in the hole his fees, plus their fees (say $20,000 on an individual case) and mortgages his house. Wife and kids are at a minimum unhappy, and worst case they are homeless.
DirectTV can afford to lose, the individual can't, DIrectTV knows this, so it isn't exactly a level playing field. Level playing fields are not guaranteed - only access to the court system is.
Note also that the class action suit was not really based on the merits of DirectTVs case - they accused DirectTV of extortion.
Website for targetted consumers (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday July 18 2003, @10:31AM)
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:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 25 2001, @03:53PM)
I don't care if things are 'advertised' as being illegal. If I buy a crowbar because someone says it can be used to break windows and steal cars, and I use it to tear down a wall I don't want in my house, is that illegal? Perhaps a used crowbar is more in my price range, or that crowbar costs less than one down at the hardware store. It doesn't matter how it's advertised, it matters how I use it. Note: I didn't say "how I intend to use it".
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://sc.tri-bit.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday July 08, @02:36AM)
I don't care if things are 'advertised' as being illegal. If I buy a crowbar because someone says it can be used to break windows and steal cars, and I use it to tear down a wall I don't want in my house, is that illegal?
IANAL, which nobody seems to remember to mention anymore. 's pretty important; I could be blatantly misunderstanding something here, as it's clear that at least a quarter of the remainder of the discussion is.
This argument loses a lot of steam when you attempt to complete the metaphor. What legitimate purpose did these decoders serve? The argument might better be made using a device which is contextually generally for the Dark Side; a slim jim, electric lockpick, or tumbler breaking tools might be a better choice. The locksmith, the AAA guy, and the police officer have good reasons to have these things. The dude in the fake ninja getup in the industrial slums has a germane bit of explaining to do.
What I'm wondering is how DTV can sue for descramblers. Traditionally they've been legal, because once the end-user buys the device, it's theirs, and they may do with it as they please. Same as Mod Chips, flash cards for game platforms, VCRs / PVRs / tapedecks / DVD burners / CD burners, third party debuggers, etc. There's nothing wrong with it until you do something wrong with it.
Is the hardware leased? Is there some kind of end-user contract? Does one of the new laws (DMCA, SSSPCA, USPSKFC, whatever) change the way this is seen in court? Help me understand what they're actually accusing of, in specific, rather than topically.
I can very easily see the argument for a suit against the manufacturers of the item - priove black box reengineering, etc - but Compaq started a clone market with this sort of behavior. And besides, if Compaq *had* been in the wrong, since when would it be the user's fault for buying a device that at the time was legal?
Or, there's the TV Piracy suggestion. Two words: prove it. That's the only claim here that I understand, and it's not certain. You can't sue for maybe.
There are dozens of laws against using the legal system to cow the populace; more clueful slashdotters will bring them up (I've already seen barratry, extortion, and I'm expecting conspiracy or collusion or whatever they perenially accuse airlines of in price fixing soon...) It seems that, in the light that DirecTV has little actual wrongdoing in hand, there ought to be a class action or something similar in rebuttal.
Then again, apparently they've been overturned already, so I've obviously missed some serious detail. Guh?
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
This flies in the face of the point I was trying to make. The reason a crowbar is a bad metaphor is that it's got many legitimate purposes. So does a soldering iron.
What the hell are you doing that's not theft with a goddamn DirecTV-specific decoder box?
The thing is, smart cards have plenty of legitimate uses beyond DTV boxes, and DTV is using an industry standard smart card format. If they were using a proprietary format, and these smart card programmers had to be specifically designed for DTV smart cards, I would agree with you. Since they're using an industry standard format, however, it's really no different than going after everyone who owns a crowbar or a soldering iron.
This strikes me as a watered down version of the sarcastic response gun control advocates make to the suggestion that the average citizen has a right to own an assault rifle.
According to the Bill of Rights, and the intentions of those who wrote it, the average citizen DOES have the right to own an assault rifle, even if assault rifles aren't mentioned directly. The purpose of the Right to Bear Arms is not for hunting, or even to protect oneself from criminals; it is to protect oneself from an abusive or overbearing government.
I should probably mention that I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I even own so much as a squirtgun, but I am a firm beleiver in the founding principles of this nation.
OT, but something you should think about.
I mean, christ's sake, you can't even have some simple martial weapons, like nunchaku, which are important for spiritual practices for a good many people.
Completely OT now, but now that I've actually had some training with nunchaku (or jul bong, if you're Korean) I think that law is pretty funny. You're allowed to have them for martial arts practice or demonstration, or on your way to or from practice or demonstration, or if you are a martial arts instructor, or in the privacy of your own home. What it boils down to is that you're only allowed to have them if you know how to use them. The really funny part of that is, as is obvious to anyone who has used them, if you don't know what you're doing you're really only dangerous to yourself.
Re:BARRATRY! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://maotig.blogspot.com/)
Actually no. Guns are designed to fire projectiles out of a barrel at high velocity. Guns can fire many forms of non-lethal forms of munitions like rubber or spongy bullets. The question is intent and action. If I kill, injure or threaten for non legitimate purposes such as self defence, then throw the book at me. If I use the weapon in self defence, for hunting, sport shooting at a gun club or any ligitimate reason defined under law, you cannot criminally or civially try me since I have not commited a crime.
However, buying a smartcard reader means you were going to steal TV programming, and the consequences are more severe. I don't get it.
So does that mean if you own a computer with a cdrom that you should be tried for intelectual property infringement? You could rip the cd and distribute the music. Well if you have not actually committed IP infringment, then no. The point is you cannot be tried for commiting a crime that you have not commited yet. Smartcard readers are becoming more and more standard in devices. To modify what the readers see you need a programmer. Smartcard programmers are multi purpose devices just as a CD-RW are. What gets put on them is what makes things illegal or not.
does prior restraint fit into all this? I don't know the first thing about law but this concise explanation seems to indicate so.
Prior restraint is a description of a law that tries to impose sanctions on an activity to fetter it before it happens. There is one law in this case that could be applied here: DMCA. In general as DMCA is used more to procecute people who use technologies for fair use, it will eventually be either be striken from the books or ruled unconstitutional(theres always hoping).
As for the rest of the essay it is highly critical of prior restraint as afront to liberty as indicate by :
The inexorable consequences of prior restraint, where employed outside the bounds of the doctrine of limited government, are simply an unwise and needless loss of liberty.
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
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://nedwolf.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 30 2005, @01:10PM)
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:They are gonna have a hard time.... (Score:5, Interesting)
See, because you were actually intelligent in going about purchasing this stuff. I can't tell you how many sob stories I've heard from people in the "hobby" about the "letter." In the last 2-3 years, the DTV hacking market just blew up bigtime, and there were tons of sites that were selling equipment. In the mad rush to beat the competition, a ton of these places actually started accepting credit cards. WTF... The standard had always been money orders, find a reputable dealer (that isn't base in the U.S. dummies!!), buy your stuff, and have it sent to a safe address.
Now you've got thousands of people with letters, dealers and fulfillment houses raided, and a bunch of dumb m***erf**kers that can't figure out how they got busted.
While I totally disagree with the tactics that DTV is employing, all I can say is what in the f**k do you guys expect?!?!
Simple fact is that the letters that these people got were not sent because they bought a generic smart card reader/writer. They bought devices with (usually) Atmel AT90S2313-10PC I.C.'s on them which were programmed with a flash that had no other purpose than to circumvent the security on a DTV access card. Now, I don't have a problem with DTV getting ripped off; I could care less. But the fact remains that these devices are illegal access devices, and as such, are illegal. Sucks, yeah, but that's why you have to be f**king careful when you buy this stuff!!!!
Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
(https://sourceforge.net/projects/ruoppolo/ | Last Journal: Monday December 12 2005, @02:51AM)
I mean, its sick-twisted-wrong but it makes sense unfortunatly.
Great! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://azega.com/)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://writings.barrettj.com/)
*Your definition of everyone may vary from that of the US Senate and Large Corporations
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:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.save-the-rainforests.com/)
Newsflash: (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday February 18 2005, @11:24AM)
Is this sensationalism or an honest mistake?
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: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.
Re:Newsflash: (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.spamgourmet.com/)
For a little background, smartcards vary greatly in how "smart" they are. In fact, the first smartcards used in DirectTV systems were simple memory cards that had little or no tampering protection (they may of had a checksum for the ID number, but thats it). People used to put new cards on their devices and simply become another customer.
Later versions used encryption and/or public/private keys, which were much more difficult to hack, but some of these too can be hijacked like a man in the middle attack by putting a device between the card and the reader, but this is rare.
Personally, I find this hilarious. Let them go around suing people for all I care. All of the burdon of proof is on them to prove that you were stealing thier service. That would be very difficult to attempt if the person they were sueing did not do anything, like the sucker in the article that just wrote them a check.
Target card (Score:5, Funny)
(http://gould.cx/ted | Last Journal: Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:30PM)
Re:Target card (Score:4, Informative)
(http://programmers.malfunct.net/)
SmartCard Readers? They are suing.. (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.jroller.com/page/shareme/Weblog | Last Journal: Tuesday September 03 2002, @07:25AM)
Re:For cryin' out loud... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think it's more like suing everyone who's ever bought a knife because somebody got stabbed.
So who paid cash? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So who paid cash? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://timgray.blogspot.com/)
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:So who paid cash? (Score:4, Insightful)
So? Suppose you bought lights for growing plants from a mail order place which is clearly targetted at people growing cannabis, but you use them to grow tomatoes? There's nothing wrong with buying or using them to grow tomatoes. DirecTV is just using that trick because they want any leverage they can in proving they were being used for piracy. But I can't see what the problem would be, any more than buying blank CDs from a site selling game copying software shows you`re about to pirate games. A cheap source of disks is a cheap source of disks.
so... (Score:5, Interesting)
CD Burners (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Laura
Re:CD Burners (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/currentlyoffline...)
Here's a better one... (Score:5, Interesting)
Outside their market? (Score:3, Interesting)
This happend to my uncle (Score:5, Informative)
(http://miyakohouou.dyndns.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 07 2004, @01:15AM)
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.
Re:If you can't do the time.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.unity08.com/)
But a smartcard programmer could have other uses as well, both legal and illegal, and not all of them make a person financially liable to DirecTV.
Re:If you can't do the time.... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Seems reasonable to me! On the other hand though, I wouldn't buy cocaine from a white flour dealer.
Re:If you can't do the time.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, how about this analogy. Duffel bags are a popular item for bank robbers to stash the stolen money in. I'm interested in purchasing a duffel bag for my own non-bank-robbing purposes (and what I use it for is none of your business or anyone else's but my own). So, I go online to look for a good deal and the site I find advertises the duffel bags as "GREAT ASSETS FOR BANK ROBBERY!!!". I buy the bag, I get sued by a bank?
How the site advertises the duffel backs doesn't have a damn thing to do with the legitimacy of my purchase. As long as I stay within the law what I do with my duffel bag is my own business and I'll be damned if I'll let some stupid bank pry their way into my affairs after making assumptions about my purpose. If I rob a bank, then prosecute me. But, until someone breaks the law corporations should have no right to sue, threaten, or otherwise harass consumers.
Yep. (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, they usually just demand money and the return of the equipment purchased. Of course the people they sue usually don't have the resources to fight the claims, so who knows if this will actually be tested in court?
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Realizing that their locks can be circumvented with a modicum of patience and the above mentioned tools, Kiwkset raided sales records at local home and office supply chains to locate citizens who had purchased paperclips and screwdrivers. Citing that no one who purchased the two items in the same month could possibly be up to any good, Kwikset sent out cease and desist letters to approximately 40,000 citizens demanding that they turn over the screwdrivers and paperclips to local authorities.
Legal extortion. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in effect, what DirecTV is saying is "Give us $3500 or we will sue you." It doesn't matter if they have a case or not. They get $3500 or you pay more in legal fees.
Actually, this is more like Tony Soprano's business model than anything.
Re:Legal extortion. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
And ten thousand people, that would be a movement. And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-DTV-extortion movement....
Oh, never mind. Average
Re:Legal extortion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anyone explain why programmer is required? Why person can't simply go to computer and state what he/she wants application to do.
Once again... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://127.0.0.1/I_h4x0r_j00r_cpu | Last Journal: Friday August 24, @06:57PM)
Imagine, an innocent person buying a product that could be used to reprogram other equipment, such as an electronic control for art exhibits, or access control at the keyboard, is now threatened to pay thousands of dollars in damages because a corporation decided that piece of equipment can be used to violate their protection schemes (and the DMCA). The hapless individual, fearing more lawsuits in federal courts (thus costing even more than the original sum of money), decides to pay up to this bully to avoid more troubles...
Oh wait, that just happened. This is the kind of events we really should support the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) for. If you happen to know anyone who are harmed by this, let them know about the EFF.
Whoever has the biggest stick wins (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.geekazon.com/)
I want to care, but the victims don't! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.outshine.com/)
You know, people like Sosa make this really difficult. DirecTV is doing something unethical, I believe. People are getting wrongfully accused in my opinion. But Sosa just rolled over and paid out $3500. These people are a problem because they help a bad system to stay bad. It makes it terribly difficult for me to have sympathy for someone who has such a lack of conviction, such a failed sense of justice. They don't care. Should we?
Re:I want to care, but the victims don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
--rhad
Re:I want to care, but the victims don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me naive, or what?
Re:I want to care, but the victims don't! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Oh, crap. That's exactly what DirecTV wants us to think, isn't it? They'll assume (and convince us to assume) that everyone who settled is a thief. Armed with 'proof' that all these people stole their services, DirecTV now lobbies Congress for DMCA2 or SSSCA or FTCA (Fuck the Consumer Act, why beat around the bush now?) and gets it passed.
Re:FUCK ME - PEOPLE ARE USELESS - RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.theschmoejoes.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 19 2004, @02:56PM)
Maybe this qualifies as 'balls'. Next time RTFA, and keep your kneejerk reactions to yourself.
You pretty much have to settle (Score:3, Interesting)
I work with smart cards and I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.angelfire...irak/tutorial/day10/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 04, @05:00PM)
Do I need something other than a PC attached smart card reader and a knowledge of how to send an APDU to the card to unloop it? What is it that makes the "programmer" special?
The term "smart card reader" often confuses those new to smart cards. All "smart card readers" are also "smart card writers" (a term which will give you away as a newbie) in that they can send information to the card and recieve information from it.
Here is the Legal Papers Sent (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.chicago2600.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 27 2002, @04:18AM)
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/
Welcome to the New World Order (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.soccercityusa.com/)
And you don't even have to threaten to do so anymore. All you need to do is have the ethnicity/equipment/political affiliation that labels you as someone who "could" commit a crime.
I have an MP3 player at home and MP3's on my PC, so I *MUST* be downloading copyrighted music.
I have a CD Burner in my laptop, so I *MUST* be copying software.
I am not a Republican, so I *MUST* be engaging in sedicious activity.
And alot of people/politicians/companies seem to be jumping on the through crime/preventive detention/suing before the fact bandwagon these days.
Scary indeed.
Damn damn damn! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://home.primus.ca/~ronsharp/tororg.html)
Its about the intent. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://deron.meranda.us/)
Clearly these suits are not designed to go to court; they are designed to get people to turn themselves in and get these devices off the street. US$3500 is too cheap for anybody who really is guilty by intent to take it to court. And the "guilty" probably are the majority of the people who bought from those sites.
Of course the problem is those who are innocent. Courts have shown in the past that if you buy a device like this with the intent to perform a crime, then you are guilty even if you didn't carry through on that crime. And as the sites advertised as such, showing that was your intent is much easier.
However there are very legitimate uses for these devices, just as the article shows, and innocent people will get caught up in this. Just because the site may advertise this device as being useful for cracking DirecTV, I may very well buy it for other purposes if the price was cheap. Think about someone selling hardened-steel axes for $5.00 with the advert "You can chop down your neighbor's door with this!"...but at $5.00 I would probably buy one to cut my firewood. If it's not inherently an illegal device (which smartcard programmers are not) and my intended use was not illegal then I did nothing wrong. My intented use doesn't have to match that of the advertiser.
Until this point I've actually respected DirecTV's anti-piracy approach; mainly by counter-hacking and outsmarting the illegal crackers. But now they are going to snare a lot of innocent folks in an expensive legal trap, and setting a bad example for other corporations to try. The innocent should be able to beat this without too much effort, but it will sadly cost them a lot of money and time to prove their innocence.
IANAL: Vexatious Litigant (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.hae.com)
class action suit anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'm curious about is if there is any organization of a class action suit against DirectTV, where the class is the people who have been incorrectly identified by DirectTV as pirates? They would most likely be liable for mental anguish and defamation as well (seriouslly, blaming someone for being a pirate could be very damaging to them, especially to buisiness people).
Here's to hopin'
Conspiracy theory:Smartcard readers = sales ploy (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.kaillera....topic=1743&forum=5&0 | Last Journal: Tuesday August 10 2004, @02:43PM)
My wife seeing "All the channels" kept insisting that we get the same system. I reluctantly agreed to let her do it (I thought our cable was just fine though) How could one go wrong with the setup though? Every channel on direct TV (including playboy =D ) for the price of a basic subsciption.
Well about a month after we got the system we started to have problems. Dish networks sent out a signal that required us to reprogram the card. No problem, just insert the card into the programmer, attatch to computer and run a few things to update it... Cool works again. You could never tell when or where they were going to strike with the "zap signal" again. Sometimes I would come home, flip on the TV and get an error message. Nothing more irritating than having to reprogram your card every time you sit down to watch TV.
Then the zap signals got worse, they didn't just fry the smartcard, they actually fried the flash on the base unit. So we would be without TV for a week or so while we waited for our roomates cousin to come over, take the box apart, put some hokey looking things with pins across the pins of the flash chip and reflash the unit.
She would start the most ill logic fights with me "DON'T WATCH TV WHEN YOU GET HOME OR WE'LL GET ZAPPED!" she would tell me. WTF is it for then if not to watch it? (I don't think it really mattered if I was watching or not, the unit seems to be in a constant on state)
After 4 months of this shit, I finally gave up on the card reader. I set all our cards back to thier defaults and tossed them in my junk pile. I told my wife I better not catch her using it again or I would just rip the entire dishTV system out and there would be NO TV.
Now she won't get rid of the damn thing for the sake of argument. I told her from the get go I didn't really think it was a keen idea, and I think the only reason we're keeping it past the 1 year contract is because she doesn't want to admit it was a stupid purchase.
Well anyways, our roomates cousin sold a lot of these 1 year subscriptions this way. Despite knowing the problems with it, he still continues to use this as a sales device to this day. We've had a number of friends that went for "all the channels" only to come home to a black screen or an error message.
I just think it's irony that they're suing people for buying into their #1 sales hook. Hook line and sinker.
The quote that scares me... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.tfosmux.org/)
I'm confused...Guilty until proven innocent?
Cable Industry does the same thing (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 29 2002, @10:47AM)
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.
I would be equally pissed at the vendor (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://infaux.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 01 2005, @02:08PM)
Okay, probably the smart card vendors didn't get paid by DTV for the customer list, but I would be mighty angry if they gave MY info to the DirectTV goons for this exortion.
If i had to buy a smart card reader, I would pay in cash. And no, I don't want to sign up for a catalog of special smart card reader offers.
So what lesson did we learn? Pay in cash for legally questionable items, such as the big bad smart card reader, or hydroponics equipment.
Return of the Schoolyard Bully! (Score:3, Funny)
He had a great "business model": he would approach another kid, invariably one who was smaller than him, and say "I heard you were talking about me behind my back. So, you're gonna bring me a dollar tomorrow, or I'm gonna beat you up and take your lunch money every day for a whole week." After the first demonstration of his willingness to enforce the demand, the threatened kids paid up.
This seems to me to be nothing more than a refinement of the same tactic: pay up, or We the Corporation will proceeed to make your life an absolute hell. Most people will cough up the cash, because no matter how good their lawyer migh be, the corporation has deeper pockets and near-infinate patience. Just like Mr. Sosa in the article, people have wives, kids, careers, and mortgages that they do not want to see threatened by a huge legal judgement, lawyer's fees, and the stigma of defending one's self against the accusation of an illegal activity. Compared to everything that a potential defendant has to lose, $3500 usually looks like a bargain. The lawsuits are unethical as can be, because DirecTV clearly does not give a tinker's damn about the guilt or innocence of the accused parties.
Sadly, this pattern of abuse will continue until DirecTV meets up with a proverbial Mouse that Roared. Just like the schoolyard bully. What happened to him, you ask? Let's just say that he never expected to get his lights punched out by a geeky girl.
*buffs nails on shirt and walks away whistling*
Whatever you beam into my house and body is MINE (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole premise is wrong in my opinion, I think I should be able to do what I want with things people give to me or leave on my property.
If you are beaming your signals into my property, my house, my body, my kids, etc, I will damn well do what I please with them!
I almost have a duty to intercept them and decode them and make sure they are not harmful in anyway.
If they arrived unsolicited in the physical mail they would be mine to keep by federal law no questions asked.
You don't want me to do anything with them?? Then keep them off my land and out of my body, problem solved.
These are physical radio waves, you are dumping them on my property and I can't do what I want with them?
I dont think so....
Heh, old news ... to me anyways. (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.stickimup.com/)
These are not all normal programmers (Score:5, Informative)
Rule 11 (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.angio.net/)
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+...
I *was* going to be a DTV customer ... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 02 2006, @04:02AM)
Let DirecTV know how you feel (Score:3, Informative)
(http://seankelly.biz/)
Counter sue for preventative cancer costs... (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday May 02 2003, @12:35PM)
The neighbors on both sides of me have DirecTV dishes, and since they get good reception I know the waveforms must be penetrating my house, and thus myself and my family. If we magically develop cancer 20 years from now, who's to say it wasn't that particular does of radiation that caused it?
As long as the US still wants to pretend to be a democracy (rather than the commercial Oligarchy it really is), anything which enters my home belongs to me, and provided that my doing so doesn't infringe on other rights (making money is not a right!), I can use that signal however I choose. Heck, if I don't record it, I'm not even violating any copyright laws since I'm using the original signal, not a copy.
Alas, I don't have DirecTV... I am stuck with cable, so it's a moot point anyways. Maybe when they start suing everyone who bought a television, since they MIGHT be watching something that was once pirated from DirecTV....
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?
Editorial comments by Taco are incorrect (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://wolf.cheats4u...st/index.php?ref=893 | Last Journal: Thursday January 08 2004, @10:14PM)
Here's an analogy:
It is illegal to buy things that are sold as illegal drugs, even if they are not drugs. For instance, if I buy flour from a dealer thinking it is coke, I go to jail for trying to buy drugs.
Now. Let's say that I am in a swanky neighborhood and I need some flour for a tart. My next door neighbor is Pablo Escobar. I know he has flour, because I called him and asked. He sells it cheaply, too, even cheaper than my local grocer. So, I walk across the street and buy flour from Pablo (thinking that it is flour, and it is). Pablo put it in a plastic bag, because he always seems to have those.
I start to walk out of the house, and the cops raid the place. I get busted for trying to buy drugs. Now maybe I have a perfectly innocent reason for being where I am with what I have, but it sure looks bad, doesn't it? If I had been caught in the same circumstances and the occupant of the house was Ned Flanders and the cops were looking for a rapist, I wouldn't be in trouble, most likely. Is it wrong that this difference exists?
Our courts are not truth detectors. There is no magic crystal that glows in the presence of honesty. Past experience and facts are all that a court can rely upon to make judgment calls.
The facts here are that all of the dealers here were shut down for peddling illegal pirate TV devices. Their customer records were pulled and showed buyers and what the buyers bought. Maybe some of them are innocent, but most of them absolutely were trying to steal tv signals. They are now caught up in civil cases, where the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases and Directv has some pretty damning circumstantial evidence. It is (rightly) on the shoulders of the defendants to put up or shut up and pay up.
Mod me down if you want, but it won't change my mind that these people are, for the most part, thieves that are trying to justify their conduct after the fact.
GF.
Take it from someone who knows (Score:5, Interesting)
I was served at work, where i am a unofficial IT guy, with my fellow co-workers looking on as if i were a dangerous criminal. (Embarassing does not even begin to explain the feeling.) My first reaction was, WTF is this? I have never been sued before, i have never been in any kind of trouble before, hell, i have not had a speeding ticket in over 10 years. . . . but low and behold, here was a document stating that i am being sued for $120,000 by a company that i have been a long standing customer with for many years. As i read on, i found out that it was for a Smart Card Programmer. Once again that WTF feeling came back. . . . I purchased this equipment over 2 years ago for a security project that never got off of the ground. A company that i worked for wanted a better way to keep control over who used the company network, i found some info on smart cards, did a search for "smart card programmer" and purchased the cheapest unit i could find. (about $160 if memory serves me correctly), Only to find out that it would not work for what i wanted to do. And now im being sued! And as i said earlier, i am a DTV customer, have been for 6 years. If i were going to hack TV cards, you would think that i would do mine first!
Just to make one thing clear, I am a poor guy, And as a poor guy, there are not many options for me to take. Anyway, i dont want to rant about this, however i believe that it is a great injustice. This is just extortion, plain and simple. I was told that i could settle for $4,500 before i went to court, or $10,000 after the court process had began. Alternatively, i could fight it, and the cheapest lawyer would be on the average of $15,000 by the time it is all over. Obviously, not a "poor boy" option. And since it is a civil case, i am not entitled to a court appointed lawyer. So the only option left for me is to fight it myself. Which, if any of you have ever looked into the paperwork involved in a Federal Civil Case, looks like i have just over a snowball's chance in hell.
So if i go to court and loose, by law, they can take what little i have, and then some. One option that they could take is garnishment, and being that this is a Lawsuit for damages, they could take a chunk of my pay check for the next 25 years! I only make $12 an hour now, and have a wife and 2 kids, so this is not a good thing for a person who is just barely making it. This Lawsuit is designed to crush people like me so that people who have the money to pay the ransom, will do so.
Re:Take it from someone who knows (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 01 2004, @05:09AM)
Were I in your shoes, I'd do everything I could to find a lawyer who fits the criteria and slap an extortion and harrassment counter suit, naming damages in the $100 million range. Then refuse to settle.
If you can't find a lawyer who meets the above criteria, contact CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews or some other national news outlet to see if they'd be interested in running your story.
Once it hits TV, lawyers will crawl out of the woodwork to help just for the noteriety.
Good luck!
Constitution? What Constitution? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm on the fence (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I wish all the people who take broadcast decoding for granted would go to hell.
You see, I would never go to the trouble of using a device to decode scrambled broadcast signals. It's just not the sort of contraption that interests me. I tend to do without entertainment rather than meet such a barrier to its consumption. It's in the same category of "not going to the theatre because the parking lot is too full."
But this DTV thing goes much further than that.
You see, I know PLENTY of people who use a clandestine tv receiver. I've watched them gloat over their cards as if they had found a Willie Mays rookie card in an attic or something. I've seen them setup all kinds of PC contraptions to fake the receiver. Sure, I run in a circle of nerds, students, blacksmiths, musicians, and accountants, so my experience is somewhat skewed -- but still, I've never met ANYBODY who actually pays retail for DTV, yet I know all kinds of people who do the whole card-hacking trick.
From my limited sample, I've deduced that a large number of people get their signals for free.
Because I know this, I would never, ever, buy the service. Wouldn't even consider it. I don't care what it costs. Knowing that a large number of people get it free, and take getting it free for granted, is enough to stop me from any consideration of buying it. As far as doing the card thing, I could care less. If I were going to put that much effort into anything, it would be toward my music gear, not my TV. I'd do without TV first.
So in a way, part of me hopes the plaintiff prevails. I'd be a lot happier if they could come up with a technical solution that works -- because I know the legal solution never will.
Seriously. If I didn't have knowledge that the service was commonly gotten for free, I might take notice of the product. Might even consider buying it. But not in the current situation.
Even if it's worth the price, I'd not voluntarily enter into something that makes me feel like a chump.
Quite a pity... (Score:4, Funny)
So, you cant be sued for having a gun (and possibly killing a person in the future) -- but you can be sued for having bought a card reader?!?
Oops, almost forgot! Were talking about profits here, not lives!
My bad...
What if... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://phorm.phormix.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 19 2003, @12:08PM)
So you're decoding the signal... but you're paying for it anyways. Is it still illegal? Is DTV allowed to say what I can decode my signal for, or how? Just wondering... (my guess is they'd probably try to regardless)
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: The bastion of freedom and democracy (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.shellshock.com/)
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.