Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Racketeering Suit Filed Against DirecTV 237

Posted by michael from the one-reason-why-i-chose-cable dept.
dki writes "Another attempt is being made to head off the lawsuits DirecTV has been filing against purchasers of smart-card programmers. This time, lawyers have filed suit under the mob-busting Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) federal organized crime statute, accusing DirecTV of organized extortion, money laundering and fraud. Background on the ongoing saga can be found here and here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Racketeering Suit Filed Against DirecTV More

Racketeering Suit Filed Against DirecTV

Comments Filter:

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sklivvz ( 167003 ) * <marco@cecconi.gmail@com> on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:28PM (#6883199) Homepage Journal
    ...said lawyers were brought away by a medical task force after they started drooling heavily. An eye witness reported that they showed all the symptoms of rabies, including a heavy dose of paranoia...


    • "Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!"

      RICO? Please

      • Pay up $3500 and return the machine, IQ: 80
        Pay up $3500 and keep the machine for your legitimate purposes, IQ:
        90 Pretend you dont speak english, IQ: 100
        Happen to be a lawyer and decide to go to court, IQ: 110
        Pay up $3500 that you subsidize by selling machine to your pirate buddy while a huge storm of opportunist lawyers grab at your case, IQ: 130
        Send DirecTV a matching goatse check (linked to CEO's account) and friendly tubgirl thank-you letter, IQ: 150+++

  • About time! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Brahmastra ( 685988 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:28PM (#6883208)
    I'm glad someone has had the balls to do this. DirecTV is yet another extortion corporation like SCO. Demanding money to not file a lawsuit seems to be in style these days. Before you realise it, the US government will make it legal for these scumbag corporations to do an anal probe on you and you will have to pay up if you want to avoid being anal probed.

    • Re:About time! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Popsikle ( 661384 )
      I agree, this may set a precedance. If this gets ruled in favor of consumers, where shall the RIAA stand?

    • Thanks for bringing up SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mhesseltine ( 541806 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:31PM (#6883238) Homepage Journal

      I was just wondering why SCO hasn't been sued under RICO. It's the same type of thing, isn't it?

      1. You have our I.P.
      2. We won't show you proof.
      3. Give me $699 / instance

      4. Of course, what logically follows is:

      5. Profit!

      Note the uncanny lack of a ??? step in this scheme.

      • Re:Thanks for bringing up SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Brahmastra ( 685988 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:35PM (#6883288)
        If this case goes against DirecTV, I'm sure there will be multiple lawsuits against the RIAA and SCO. For example, the RIAA sent an extortion letter to a professor for having a perfectly legal file on his website, just because the filename looked suspicious. I'm sure there are multiple such cases, with all the extortion letters being churned out by SCO and RIAA lawyers. I hope a precedent is set and an end is put to this Big Corporation/Scummy Lawyer extortion alliance.

      • SCO was more careful (so far) (Score:5, Interesting)

        by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:37PM (#6883307) Homepage
        I was just wondering why SCO hasn't been sued under RICO. It's the same type of thing, isn't it?

        So far....not quite. First, SCO hasn't actually approached any customers, though they've blustered that they might. So your first problem is, who's the plaintiff in this theoretical case? Second, they don't offer a settlement, they offer licensing - and amnesty from something (a possible suit) that hasn't even been established yet.

        Yes, it's a fine line, but SCO's dancing it pretty well.

        • First, SCO hasn't actually approached any customers, though they've blustered that they might. So your first problem is, who's the plaintiff in this theoretical case? Second, they don't offer a settlement, they offer licensing - and amnesty from something (a possible suit) that hasn't even been established yet.

          I have to wonder if SCO came very close to inviting a RICO suit. Recall that initially that blatantly stated they would pursue litigation againt commercial users. Now this has been downgraded to "inv

        • They've contacted customers offering licences for "protection" against any legal action.

          "Thats a real nice operating system you've got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it."

          Though I do agree a RICO suit may not be appropriate for SCO, but legal action is definitely in order (against SCO).

      • I was just wondering why SCO hasn't been sued under RICO. It's the same type of thing, isn't it?

        I think this is kind of different from previous RICO suits. The classic RICO case is where some gangster demands payments in exchange for "protecting" somebody from "accidents". That's been extended into situations where political extremists who have advocated violence have faced RICO suits by the victims of that violence. But you're still talking about intimidating somebody with illegal acts.

        In this suit, th

    • Or even better yet...

      From DirectTV: "We've noticed that you've been watching quite a lot of Skin-a-Max and have school-aged children. We know you're as interested as we are in preventing the exploitation of children, so please pay us the customary 'Certified Responsible Parent' registration fee of $1000, or we'll report this incident to the appropriate child welfare agencies for further investigation."

    • It'll fail... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      I'm glad someone has had the balls to do this. DirecTV is yet another extortion corporation like SCO. Demanding money to not file a lawsuit seems to be in style these days.

      Providing a settlement offer before filing a civil suit may be in style, but by itself it won't qualify as extortion or racketeering. If they do have a case, it is a legitimate offer to end it without lawyer's fees and court costs. If they don't have a case, simply refuse the offer and see them in court (if they at all try).

      If going to

      • Re:It'll fail... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by grunteled ( 674543 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:04PM (#6883546)
        Except that the basic cost is 8 to 10K to take it to Federal Court, that's if you win. Loose (or get out-motioned) and it could be astronomical. I'm sorry but individually the letters might have merrit but when you take a "threaten everyone and let god sort 'em out" stance with no reguard to the financial harm to innocent people there is something wrong with that. 10K to DTV may be easy to sneer at, but to someone who works for $60,000 a year, the cost to defend an unverified law-rape is pretty staggering.

        The comment that It's just a few innocent people here and there is outrageous to me. One or two people forced into paying $3500 with no evidence they actually stole anything is unacceptable. If that's what the legal system allows for then it does need an awfully big overhaul.
      • If going to court is such a terrible thing

        It is if it bankrupts you, in spite of the minor fact that you won. What is needed is a clear signal that the loser will pay the winner's costs. [lectlaw.com] I wonder if the litigants are going to forego an award of costs due to the charge of 'fraud' (see 2.b) [iways.net] in their action?

        -AD

        • While the loser does not always have to pay the winner's legal fees, in the right circumstances they can be ordered to pay. In fact the same group that filed this suit, tried to sue DirectTV for extortion in state court. They lost and were ordered to pay [hackhu.com] DirectTV's legal costs of $97,222.10.

          DirectTV was able to use CA's anti-SLAPP statute [casp.net] to have the case thrown out [hackhu.com] without a trial. Demand letters are protected communications, not extortion.

          It is interesting how the roles are reversed here. Normally an a

      • Re:It'll fail... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Your comment shows lack of understanding. A lawsuit is often very expensive, and can be drawn out very easilier if you have deep pockets. The case may have no merits, but many people may not have the funds to see it to the end.

        Essentially, it's an imbalance of power. A company comes to you and says: pays us or we will take you to court and bankrupt you, even though you are in the right.

        Sounds like: give us money for no reason or we will cause you unjustified pain.

        Sounds like extortion to me.

        • Re:It'll fail... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by geoff2 ( 579628 )
          That's all true -- there is a signficiant imbalance of power. But that's the way our legal system has worked since the beginning. If one party thinks another party is causing some kind of legal injury -- by hitting him, by defrauding him, or by stealing his property -- then the remedy is to file a civil lawsuit.

          DirecTV apparently believes that these folks are stealing their service. They have every right to file a lawsuit, so long as they have what they think is good reason to think that these people a

      • Re:It'll fail... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Alien Being ( 18488 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:44PM (#6883902)
        "If they don't have a case, simply refuse the offer and see them in court (if they at all try)."

        It's like the schoolyard bully who threatens to beat you up if you don't give him your lunch money.

        You can give him your lunch money; you lose, he becomes even more brazen. You can tell him no; you get beaten up and have your lunch money stolen. You can give your money to someone else to *try* to protect you; your money's gone and you might still get clobbered. Or you can join forces with others who are in the same boat and teach the bully a lesson. Sometimes, the best defense is a good offense.

        Not only do I hope they send a strong message to DirecTV, I hope DirecTV's legal staff faces some consequences with the bar association.

        • Re:It'll fail... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by LoadWB ( 592248 )
          Buddy of mine got such a visit; they threatened to arrest him at work and everything. He works in a security sensitive environment, so getting arrested would have cost him his job.

          I set him up with a lawyer and everything, ready to fight. Instead he takes out a $10k loan... and the phuqrs (DirecTV) never called back. So, he went on vacation.

  • A blatant karma grab (Score:5, Informative)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:31PM (#6883233)
    Everything [about.com] you wanted to know about RICO.

    • Re:A blatant karma grab (Score:5, Funny)

      by wembley ( 81899 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:33PM (#6883252) Homepage
      Cool. Now I understand "The Sopranos".
    • Interesting.. The definition of racketeering includes things like "section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright)"

      If I'm reading it correctly RICO makes it illegal to invest the proceeds of "racketeering" in any business which conducts interstate commerce. One could certainly argue that
  • Wait a second, can this be good? If this goes bad for DirecTV, I may be forced to watch more of their damned commercials! They already time them on all channels so you can't escape their commercials. On the good side, their menu system beats em all hands down.

    • "If this goes bad for DirecTV, I may be forced to watch more of their damned commercials!"

      If you paid attention to some of their commercials, you'd know that you could get a TiVo from them. I mean, if you don't want to see commercials, the answer is right there in front of you.

  • Dateline: Boston (Score:5, Funny)

    by JavaSavant ( 579820 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:33PM (#6883260) Homepage
    Irish Mob accuses DirectTV of copyright infringement over the use of extortion as a business practice...
    • Irish Mob accuses DirectTV of copyright infringement over the use of extortion as a business practice...

      s/copyright/patent/g, perhaps? Extortion as a business practice sounds like a business-method patent the USPTO would issue...

  • Hope this is sucessfu!... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pr0Hak ( 2504 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:34PM (#6883268)
    DirecTV's tactics are downright despicable. They are preying on individuals solely on the basis of buying a potentially innocuous piece of computer hardware.

    DirecTV is counting on the fact that those who they file suit against will either not have the legal resources to fight them, causing them to settle, or that the defendants will realize that a settlement will be better than a long, protracted, expensive court battle.

    I personally have purchased smart card programmers before (not from 'satellite piracy' sites) for programming smart cards for authentication use in a home automation system. I really don't know what I would do if I were to face a DirecTV lawsuit. One the one hand, I would like to stand up to their bullying tactics, but on the other hand, I don't know that I would have the financial resources to do so.

    This type of corporate bullying must be stopped!!!

    • Re:Hope this is sucessfu!... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dhwebb ( 526291 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:40PM (#6883320) Homepage Journal
      I am in the same situation. I've used smartcard programmers for authentication purposes with Windows 2000 networks. I would love to see DirecTV come after me. I wouldn't even hire a lawyer, because why should I waste a dime defending myself to these people. This is like the RIAA coming after me for buying a cd burner or for even having an internet connection. I mean give me a break. I think they have to prove I used the reader for programming DirecTV smartcards anyway. I think a judge would also be humored by this type of lawsuit anyway.
      • If they do come after you, the only reasons NOT to spend your money defending yourself are
        • You can get some public-spirited organization to do it pro bono, or
        • You work for a company that will pay for it, or
        • You can make them go away with a few carefully-written letters without getting to court.

        Otherwise

        • You don't know court procedures well enough to avoid getting screwed even though you're right and they're totally bogus. Lawyers know this stuff, you know computers, so hire them for legal work and have t
      • DirectTV isn't presuing just generic smartcard writers. The customer records they are suing came from known illegetimate vendors. The readers were shipped with a blank or flashed eprom for the enablement of cracking DirectTV cards. They were also considerably cheaper than "professional" sanctioned units.

        There may be a few hobbiests that get bit by this, but these customers were buying from places esentially advertizing using the tool for stealing DirectTV.

        Unfortunately, the best outcome that can oc

    • Re:Hope this is sucessfu!... (Score:4, Informative)

      by ryanwright ( 450832 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:48PM (#6883408)
      I personally have purchased smart card programmers before (not from 'satellite piracy' sites) for programming smart cards for authentication use in a home automation system.

      I just want to second this. I own two smart card programmers for exactly the same reason. I fiddled with them for awhile and decided not to use them for access control when I found iButtons were cheaper, stronger, and small enough to be built into a ring. I, too, have wondered what would happen if DirecTV decided they didn't like this and came after me. I didn't buy mine from "piratedirecttv.com", either, but it's still unsettling that I could become their next target.
      • Can you provide a little more info on these iButtons? Perhaps a link or website of a decent supplier (one who'll ship to Canada)?

        • Re:iButton (Score:2, Interesting)

          by windex82 ( 696915 )
          http://www.ibutton.com/

          and just incase more ppl actually follow in story links then i belive ill mirror some basic info from the site:

          What is an iButton?
          The iButton(R) is a computer chip enclosed in a 16mm stainless steel can. Because of this unique and durable stainless steel can, up-to-date information can travel with a person or object anywhere they go. The steel button can be mounted virtually anywhere because it is rugged enough to withstand harsh environments, indoors or outdoors. It is durable enou
        • I don't know about the shipping to Canada part, but try this www.ibutton.com [ibutton.com] as a source.
    • Yeah, but they are targeting customers of specific companies that sold Smart-Card busting material. While there's some grey-market about it, the readers were flashed with a rom to break DirectTV card encryption--these aren't generic writers.

      They should be acting in a bit better faith, but why? They could offer to buy-back the offending writers rather than sue.. i.e. "give us the writer or then we sue you" but why bother. DirectTV piracy is rampant. I've had more than one "average joe" hear that I wa

      • Yeah, but they are targeting customers of specific companies that sold Smart-Card busting material. While there's some grey-market about it, the readers were flashed with a rom to break DirectTV card encryption--these aren't generic writers.

        I do a lot of work with microcontrollers and a few years ago I was fascinated by the possibilities of smart cards so I bought a device. It was the cheapest product that had the flexibility I wanted. I don't remember where I bought it, but the site did mention DSS.

  • Want to extort somebody? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by McFly777 ( 23881 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:35PM (#6883281) Homepage
    The federal RICO case is by far the most ambitious legal counterattack DirecTV has faced, though it is similar to a lawsuit Wilens filed last year in Los Angeles, on behalf of some of the same clients, including Sosa. A county judge dismissed that case last April under a California law aimed at discouraging lawsuits that stifle constitutionally-protected activities. The judge ruled that DirecTV's letters were sent in connection with litigation, and were therefore privileged

    So if I read this correctly, if you want to extort somebody in California, you just have to make sure that the threat is one of being sued. That way your extortion threat is "in connection with litigation" and therefore "constitutionally-protected."

    Absolutely amazing. I am glad I don't live in California. (Of course I am not sure that Michigan is any better, with the Super-DMCA laws here.)

    • So if I read this correctly, if you want to extort somebody in California, you just have to make sure that the threat is one of being sued. That way your extortion threat is "in connection with litigation" and therefore "constitutionally-protected."

      As it should be.

      "We believe you have wronged us, pay us or we'll ask the court to confirm your obligation to pay us" is okay.

      "Pay us now or we'll break your kneecaps" is unequivocally extortion.

      Filing a lawsuit (at least, filing a lawsuit with merit) is not
      • Filing a lawsuit (at least, filing a lawsuit with merit) is not a punitive action.

        But the whole crux of the matter is the "lawsuit with merit" aspect then, isn't it. Mass-mailing threats of legal action with only the weakest of circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing is a little too close to barratry for comfort.

  • Who needs AP or Reuters? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:40PM (#6883321) Homepage
    DirecTV is facing growing criticism over the campaign after targeting some innocent techies who had perfectly legal uses for the equipment they purchased.

    Well, at least it's an unbiased article. :-)

  • It's interesting... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dspyder ( 563303 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:42PM (#6883339)
    I'm glad somebody is taking them to task and filing lawsuits to at least slow them down a little..... but realistically it's not a bad deal.

    You can get the equipment to watch all the TV (read: porn) you want for a mere $3500....

    The RIAA wants $15,000 for one measly song. Although you can theoretically listen to it indefinitely.

    Although for around 700 bucks you can pick up a Linux license... fun for hours (and that's just the install process)

    --D

    p.s. I pay my DirecTV bill. It ain't that bad and I'm happy to be off cable!!!
    • You can get the equipment to watch all the TV (read: porn) you want for a mere $3500....
      The RIAA wants $15,000 for one measly song. Although you can theoretically listen to it indefinitely.
      Although for around 700 bucks you can pick up a Linux license... fun for hours (and that's just the install process)

      Seeing the heads of DirecTV, RIAA, and SCO up against the wall when the revolution comes: Priceless.

  • Racketeer (Score:2, Funny)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 )
    DirecTV is playing reruns of The Rocketeer? Hell yeah they should be sued -- that's a crime against humanity, damn it!!!

  • What Would You Do? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by notcreative ( 623238 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:55PM (#6883464) Journal

    I agree that it is wrong (so very, very wrong) to extort money out of people by mass mailing settlement demands. Someone brought up the point, though: How else would a settlement be offered?

    In other words, if we disallow this behaviour, what are we going to allow? What would you do if you had a large group of people that you needed to engage in a civil suit? I'm very interested in the ideas of the /. community, since a lot of these posts are going to be "boo-yah" kind instead of the "suggestion" kind.

    • Re:What Would You Do? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by codefool ( 189025 ) <[ghester] [at] [codefool.org]> on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:01PM (#6883523) Homepage Journal
      It should be done on a case-by-case basis. DirectTV should have to painstakingly research and determine and prove that an individual is using said equipment to damage them by stealing satellite. The burdon of proof should rest solely on the shoulders of DirectTV.

      What infuriates me most about this, is that the three persons pressing the suit were not doing anything at all with satellite television, but yet settled to "avoid costly litigation." Is this the new Great American Business Model? This is not unlike what SCO is attempting to do - use the sheer weight of a threatened suit to extort money out of those who reason that it's easier to just pay up rather than fight the injustice. The injustice being that they shouldn't have to defnd themselves against baseless charges. Where is DirectTV's proof? Simply because they bought a piece of equipment from someone who also sells to pirates? This is guilt by association and unethical. It's like saying that I'm guilty of theft because I shop at Wal-Mart where many theives buy their stocking masks. Give me a break.

    • Re:What Would You Do? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by El ( 94934 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:44PM (#6883904)
      The problem is, 1) they're using a legal solution to solve a problem much more easily solved by a technical solution, and 2) they don't care who they hurt in the process. Basically, they're saying: "We designed our products to use off-the-shelf components to make it cheaper. Now how to we legally prevent everybody else in the world from using those same components?"

  • They Know They're Crooked Too.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:55PM (#6883472) Homepage Journal
    The company says the number of non-pirates swept into their dragnet is minuscule...

    That's totally fucking irrelevant assuming it's even true.

    If they're hitting ANY non-pirates in their "dragnet", why the hell aren't they checking this stuff out before they send extortion letters?

    So, not only are we supposed to accept that DirecTV is trying to act as both the executive and judicial branches of government by both serving the warrants and imposing a judgement in the form of a 3500.00 "fine", we're also supposed to say it's OK that they're arbitrary shooting is hitting innocent bystanders because they get the right target MOST of the time?

    Jeezisfuckinchrist.... how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

    • So, not only are we supposed to accept that DirecTV is trying to act as both the executive and judicial branches of government by both serving the warrants and imposing a judgement in the form of a 3500.00 "fine"

      NO.

      If you think you're not guilty of what DirecTV accuses you of, you reject the "fine" [sic] and go to court and argue your case there. Try rejecting an actual court decision like that -- you'll be jailed like you were an Alabama Chief Justice.

      This is nothing like what you say it is.

      • You've obviously never been sued....

        Let me explain to you how it works (I'm not being condescending, just making a point):

        You go to court and get a lawyer. The company sends 3. You want to just go up and say "look... I didn't do anything, prove it" knowing they can't prove it.

        The company just keeps throwing out delay tactics while your bills add up. Eventually, you have no choice but to go bankrupt or settle to end the case.

        The company gets money, you get screwed, and they also get a little PR to par

        • I'm wondering what happens if DirecTV attempts to extort someone who bought one of these devices, but has never been a DirecTV customer? Would the average court be sane enough to simply throw out DirecTV's case?

          [Come to think of it, wasn't one of the research types who settled in this very situation??]

    • how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

      A little over three years ago, by my reconing..

    • Re:They Know They're Crooked Too.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by mkldev ( 219128 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:28PM (#6883778) Homepage
      ...how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

      Are negative time values legal?

    • how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it...

      I believe the answer you are looking for is the Presidential Election of 2000
    • how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?

      You mean its not a completely corporate-run state today? How many representatives and cabinet members are execs or CEOs within corporations?

  • new Smart Card (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RocketRay ( 13092 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:00PM (#6883510)
    Last week DirecTV sent me a new Smart Card, saying it was an important update or some such nonsense. But the card has a nasty EULA saying you can't reverse engineer, disassemble, etc. or look at it for too long.

    So the card is sitting next to the box waiting for the old card to stop working. Hasn't yet.
    • ... they sent it to you unrequested in the mail. By law it's yours.

      Then send them the photos. :)

      "Disassemble THIS!"
    • You never received it... call and complain about the nag when you get it, they'll fedex you a new card right away.

      Don't throw out the old card when you're done either. Not that you'll use it for anything, but you never know...

      --D
    • Sell your old card on ebay... If it's the HU type with the football player on the front, you can get $75 for it. I sold all 3 of mine.

      I love DirectTV access card swaps, it's like getting a rebate when I sell the old cards on eBay.

  • Those smartcard programmers are a sales hook. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:16PM (#6883649) Homepage Journal
    Circa 2001...

    Roomate gets a DirectTV dish installed from her cousin (who coincidentally is an authorized dealer) He gives her a smartcard programmer, software, and everything she needs to reprogram her smartcard. Wife, seeing all the channels roomate has decides (against my judgement) that we should drop our cable for the same deal with "All the channels"

    About a month later, the reciever goes out. Call too roomates cousin, "Oh they sent out a zap signal that fried your boxes firmware, no problem I can reprogram it" He comes over, takes the reciever apart, hooks up some hokey lookin dongle from his laptop, and after a few keypresses tada! It was working again!

    Well, it wasn't just us that got it, my sister and brother in law got one too once they heard about the "free channels"

    Too make a long story short, he had gotten about 10 of our friends and family with the smartcard programmer "hook" After a year of being in this contract with DirectTV we've all dumped our dishes and gone back to cable.

  • DCMA raids (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rufey ( 683902 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:36PM (#6883849)
    Disclaimer: IANAL

    For those who read the original article in the Register [theregister.co.uk], DirectTV was only going after people who had purchased their SmartCard programmer "from one of the equipment vendors shut down in the DMCA raids".

    The same article (further down) appears suggest that the vendors in the DMCA raids were companies who's primary business was devoted to selling equipment to steal satellite TV programming

    Here's the relevent quote from the article that suggests this: "...how innocent is someone who goes to website that is clearly identified as a pirate website that is devoted to selling equipment to steal satellite TV programming, and orders the equipment, knowing full well what they're getting?"

    Is DirectTV going after people who purchased their SmartCard programmer from other places, or is it still just those consumers who were unfortunate enough to purchase their SmartCard programmer from the wrong company?

    I'm not at all for a company going out and suing people for something in which the person is not guilty, at least without giving the person the benefit of the doubt.

    As I see it, the problem is that DirectTV shut down some companies that, at least in DirectTV opinion, were advertising that their SmartCard programmers, if purchased, could be used to program a SmartCard in such a way as to enable the person to watch free DirectTV. DirectTV then took the customer list from the shut down companies and assumed that everyone who purchased a SmartCard programmer did it for the purpose of stealing satellite TV.

    Now, if you were one of the customers of one of these companies, and you did purchase your SmartCard programmer to steal satellite TV, what are you going to do when DirectTV comes knocking? Are you going to fess up, or are you going to invent a cover story?

    But assuming that everyone obtained their SmartCard reader for illegal purposes (and, hence, creates a cover story when DirectTV comes knocking) is assuming that everyone is guilty, and in DirectTV's case, without the possibility of being proven innocent.

    It really gets me that DirectTV can do this - assume guilt without the possibility of being proven innocent. I thought the US justice system was based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Isn't the burden of proof on DirectTV to prove guilt of the defendant?

    • Re:DCMA raids (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JayBlalock ( 635935 )
      Is DirectTV going after people who purchased their SmartCard programmer from other places, or is it still just those consumers who were unfortunate enough to purchase their SmartCard programmer from the wrong company?

      Doesn't matter. The simplest defense would be if that pirate vendor had lower prices - the free market in action. (which they often do) If someone's going to sell me a piece of equipment for half of what I'd pay for it in a retail store, as long as I'm reasonably sure the product itsel

  • Restricted blanks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:41PM (#6883878)
    I'm amazed that they feel the need to resort to legal tactics to fix what is inherently a technical problem. In fact, it appears analogous to a technical problem solved by lock makers over 100 years ago. Problem: people can easily obtain blank "keys" to fit my device, and modify these keys to use for theft. Solution: go to the makers of the blanks (in this case smart card manufacturers) and have them design a non-standard form factor key for you, and promise not to sell said key to anyone else. Bingo! You've suddenly increased the cost of entry for bootlegging cards from $3500 for an off-the-shelf programmer to several hundred thosand dollars for equipment to design and manufacture custom smart cards. Added benefit: you no longer have to associate with all those lawyers!

  • And in (Score:2, Insightful)

    by panxerox ( 575545 ) *
    8 years after its gone thru the court system and hundreds of people have been destroyed those people will get a check in the mail saying "and in recompense for your extorted payment (after lawyers fees) you are hearby awarded $3.42" Using lawyers for justice is like using nukes for peace.

  • Lawyer fees are the real problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:52PM (#6883957)
    Everyone's blaming DirectTV because it's cheaper to settle the case for $3500 plus your smart card reader, than to hire a lawyer to defend yourself if you're innocent. Shouldn't we be instead placing the blame on the lawyers. There's nothing illegal about offering someone a settlement to avoid litigation, particularly when the evidence is compelling. You don't need to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to file a complaint, only have some reasonable evidence. I don't consider suing someone who bought equipment advertized primarily for reprogramming DirctTV smart cards inherently wrong, because they're more than likely guilty. If they're not, they have the option to defend themselves in court. If they settle instead, that doesn't make it extortion. It's unfortunate that a reasonable settlement fee for a guilty party is less than the cost of defending yourself if you're innocent, but the lawyers are to blame for that, not DirectTV.

  • DirecTV suit against local man dismissed... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rainbird98 ( 186939 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @06:28PM (#6884219)
    When computer expert Jack Goynes of Charleston saw the technology wave moving toward smart cards, he jumped on it. He didn't figure he would be sued. Read the complete story here [charleston.net]

  • As far as I'm concerned, saying that I can't decode the satellite signals being beamed into my house (especially since I live in Canada, where you *can't buy* the service) is like saying that if I happen to walk past a venue that a band is playing, and I can hear the music, I owe them the price of a ticket.

  • I wrote about how to fix the legal system so tactics like DirecTV's little scam wouldn't work, back in January 2002. Here's the link to it. [livejournal.com] The basic idea is that if you threaten someone with legal action, you have to put money in an escrow account that they can use for their defense. When they spend money on legal fees, they also have to do the same thing, and you can use the money out of their escrow. Now if the sides are balanced financially, it'll all come out a wash, but if you're the little guy, y
  • ...because they both sure love to shoot themselves in it.

    Imagine for a moment if the RIAA was able to send free DRM CD players to everyone who currently owns a NON-DRM one. Then they stop releasing open CDs and just release the DRM ones. Sure, the protection will get hacked eventually, but then they just send out new CD players again, or include a firmware update on newer albums. Hey, if they could do that, they wouldn't need to sue anyone!

    Well guess what, the RIAA can't do that but DirecTV CAN! Every
  • I bought a sharp kitchen knife the other day, fortunately the police did not arrest me because I might have used it to murder someone.

    A friend bought a mirror, they were not arrested because they might have used it to snort cocaine.

    Things have multiple uses. The law recognises that.

    DirectTV is indulging in the same sort of extortion that the holders of software patents do. Threaten someone with a potentially expensive, although unjustified, lawsuit - and offer to settle for a fraction of the cost. Most p

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Close