DirecTV Extortion Program stopped by EFF 470
eticket writes "After several years of an Organized Extortion program DirecTV has been stopped by the EFF. As many of you may know DirecTV has been suing people who purchased card programers even if they had legitimate reasons for them. Many have settled to avoid legal issues. The problem was they had to prove innocence instead of DirecTV proving guilt. The only thing that DirecTV did was say they purchased the card programmer from a site that sold Satellite pirating equipment. Even though there are legitimate uses. Thanks to the EFF for stopping this horrible miscarriage of the legal system. "
Lawsuit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Informative)
Those who were truely not involved in stealing DirecTV's signal should have allowed the lawsuit to go forward, let DirecTV put on their case, and then move for dismissal immediately after that case before even needing to put on a defense.
DirecTV's case in some of these situations were so weak that they actually lost a case where the defendant didn't even show up because they didn't have enough evidence to merit a default ruling... that's a rather bad defeat when you can't beat a defense that's not even in the room.
But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Right, DirectTV is filing their claims under tort law, not criminal law. DirectTV is not accusing the defendant of necessarily breaking any laws, only that they were harmed as a result of the defendant's action. Remember when OJ was found not guilty at criminal court, then later was found responsible at civil court?
That's another reason defendants in these cases may have been urged to settle: civil trials are held to a much lower standard of proof than criminal trials are. "Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt", only applies to criminal charges.
/not a lawyer
This is what I've never understood... (Score:4, Insightful)
To me this seems a contradiction in our justice system. Essentially, the US Govt declared OJ not guilty in one court, and then guilty in the second. I understand that it was two different court systems, one criminal and one civil, and that there's a different standard, "proven beyond doubt" vs. "preponderance of evidence". However both courts are still under the single system of the US Govt.
We also have the constitutionally provided right to not be tried twice for the same crime, or "double jeopardy". I guess what I don't understand is the legal or moral reasons why we allow these types of civil cases at all. To me, "not being tried twice" is a pretty simple concept. It sure is different from "we'll try you once, and if that doesn't work try you again in a second court that by the way has a lesser standard of guilt."
Especially when the punishments meted out are pretty much equivalent in terms of ruining someone's life. Owing someone millions of dollars that you'll never be able to pay off in your lifetime sounds just as bad (to me at least) as spending years in jail.
Anyway, just curious why that system is like it is.
Re:This is what I've never understood... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, actually the government didn't make any such declaration - if you recall, the government was arguing very strenuously that he was, in fact, guilty. In the criminal case, a jury of his peers determined that he was not guilty according to the standards used to decide guilt in criminal cases, and the government - and the rest of us, for that matter - are bound to respect. Now, in murder cases, the government brings charges on behalf of the dead person - it has to be that way, since they're not around to press charges any more. But that doesn't mean the victims were the only ones harmed by the murder - others who have been harmed, but not criminally victimized, can sue in civil court to recover the damages they have suffered. So the state prosecutes criminally on behalf of the victims, and the families sue on their own behalf, based on the idea that they have been harmed by the actions of the accused - specifically, they were deprived of family members. And double jeopardy doesn't apply the way you might think in such cases - you can be sued for as many times as there are people to bring claims of damage against you, although each person who has been harmed may only sue you once. But if you murder twenty people, you can expect dozens and dozens of lawsuits from their family members, each one claiming you've harmed them.
As well, you can be tried more than once for the same act, if that same act encompasses more than one offense. Suppose I intend to kidnap you and hold you for ransom, but as I grab you off the street, I handle you too roughly, and you die. Even though there's but a single act that I performed, I can be charged with any or all of several offenses - murder, attempted kidnapping, assault and battery, and so forth. And charging me with all of those things, and even trying me seperately for them, doesn't violate double jeopardy. Finally, concurrent or subsequent state and federal prosecutions don't violate double jeopardy - so sez the Supreme Court - on the theory that the federal government and state government are both sovereigns, and both have an interest in prosecution. This is how the federal government was able to prosecute the police in the Rodney King affair, despite the fact that they had been acquitted in state court - A) dual sovereignty, and; B) they were charged in federal court with a different offense arising from the same act, namely depriving King of his civil rights, which is a crime under federal law.
Re:But... (Score:4, Informative)
Choose Verdict Terms Carefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like how you don't know what you're talking abo (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that the difference is pointless semantics
You obviously do not know the difference. By acquitting Simpson of the murder charges, the jury was, in effect, saying "we do not believe that there is enough evidence to assuage our doubt that he actively participated in killing these two individuals, or performed some intentional action or actions, with intent to kill, that led to their death.
By convicting him of wrongful death and more importantly two counts of battery (neither of which the original post bothered to mention, mind you) - one against Goldman, the other his wife, the jury was effectively saying "though you may not have killed them, you are responsible, to some degree, for the loss that the grieving relatives have suffered in the form of companionship and/or support."
In addition, if the original poster hadn't just been talking out of his ass, he'd have mentioned that in CA you can not have your pension garnered in order to pay on judgements against you, so Simpson stayed sitting pretty though he lost most of what he had previously collected.
I love how people take a position on shit like this, even though they obviously have paid absolutely no attention to it, and have no clue what they're talking about. I'm going to add this to the "McDonald's Lady Was Just An Idiot" story that keeps making the rounds among people who obviously have no fucking clue what actually happened before, during, or after the lawsuit. Just another example of someone with a soapbox that's just as empty as their damn head.
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem there is, it still costs money to defend yourself in court, even if its rediculously in your favor. You not only need to pay your lawyer, and miss work, you also need to travel to wherever DirecTV decided to sue you. They use every legal trick to drag it out and make it as expensive for you as possible.
They won't typicly sue people that have the means or the will to defend themselves.
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to travel out of state if you don't want to. What jurisdiction does an out of state court have over you? You have a couple of options.
a) Mail in a motion to dismiss and ask that because of it's trivial nature you'd like to participate over the phone. It doesn't take a lawyer to fill out that form in most states.
b) If (a) fails, or if you can't be bothered travelling to another state let them get their judgement. It's a worthless piece of paper, they have to come to your state to collect and they need to go before a local judge to enforce an out of state order. Thats when you can defend yourself much better.
For example I just had somebody sue me in CA and the FL judge wiped his arse with it. Doesn't even touch your credit either.
Let them get on a plane and come to you. Chances are they won't bother.
Bottom line. A good lawyer would have no problems with a suit like this.
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:3, Insightful)
First, if directTV sued you in Federal Court and the Federal Court decided that you met the requirements for personal jurisdiction in that forum, then any judgment against you is automatically valid in any state and enforceable in any state.
Second, by the Full Faith and Credit Credit clause of our Constitution (see Art. IV) a state has to recognize a judgment reached in another state (this is for cases in state court, not federal). So again, if a state ha
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Insightful)
But companies like this throw all kinds of crap in their letters etc. that are scarry enough to push most people aside. They're not just saying stop or I'll sue you. They put all sorts of stuff in that make it look like they have a strong case. And if you have looked through these kinds of documents, you'll know that 99% or more of the people wouldn't be able to decipher what the hell they are saying without spending money that they may not have to spend on a lawyer. Again, what Direct' and other companies like them count on.
I doubt if your fellow geeks will stand up with you. Most I know (and I am a programmer, so I know a lot) will talk big, but won't do anything (like most people I guess... re: Liar Liar: "going to bend over and take it up the ass"). Besides geeks won't do anything in groups unless forced because they don't like working together that much (ever try to pass some working code on to another programmer without them insulting the code in some way and then re-writing sections of it... and no, I'm not talking about my code... but I'm not big headed enough to exclude it either :-). Otherwise IT jobs would not be in the exempt category for overtime (which usually means forced overtime), and there would actually be some organization to lobby hard against overseas outsourcing. If people won't work together to protect their livlihoods, I don't think they will work together to fight to be able to program a card.
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or that it would be less expensive to pay off the plaintiff than pay lawyers to go to trial. A settlement is not an admission of guilt, just a legal shortcut that could end up saving money.
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh, in reality you are agreeing that a Large Company With Deep Pockets has enough money to pay their lawyers longer than you can afford to pay yours.
While the insane legal interpretation may be that you admit the case had merit, that is rarely the case. This is why McDonalds coffee cups now have a printed warning that the contents may be hot. Duh.
If we had some tort reform in the US, and insituted a "loser pays" system, then the truly innocent could afford to fight the good fight to the end rather than settle, and legal persecutions in the US courts would all but disappear.
But the lawyers we elect to represent us will never let that happen... Lawyers make a living out of creating victims where there were none.
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:3, Insightful)
miscarriage? (Score:5, Interesting)
I had to look this one up:
That just sounded like really strange wording to me, but I guess I just don't have that broad of a vocabulary.
Also - DirecTV isn't STOPPING it's hunt... they're merely modifying it:
Re:miscarriage? (Score:4, Informative)
If DirecTV sticks to the modifications mentioned in the release, most of the complaints are going to be cleared up and DirecTV's accusations should only be going to people who they have a decent chance of winning a ruling against.
Re:miscarriage? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not unreasonable for them to look for people that are actually pirating the signal. The problem with the lawsuits was that they made no distinction between those that were pirating the signal and those that had the equipment for legitimate uses. If the modification of their hunt means going from merely suing people who possess the technology to pirate the signal to suing people who are actually at least likely pirating the signal, it's a step in the right direction.
Re:miscarriage? (Score:3, Informative)
DirecTV will now drop its suits if the end user provides enough evidence of their innocence. DirecTV doesn't specify a quanta of proof, but we can assume that it will be whatever DirecTV wants it to be.
In a court, DirecTV would have the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the evidence. In effect, DirecTV would have to prove that it is more probable than not that these users were pirating their signal.
Given the fact that DirecTV based it
Re:miscarriage? (Score:3)
Actually, by any sensible standard, it is unreasonable. DirectTV launches satelites which send electromagnetic radiation into my house, and then they tell me that I am not allowed to use that radiation unless I pay them. DirectTV can encrypt the radiation, they can make it very difficult for me to decrypt it by scattering it over the spectrum, they can do whatever they want to prevent me from reading it. But they d
Re:miscarriage? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are doing no such thing and I never said they were. The government is protecting their ability to profit from it the same way they protect other service providers ability to profit from their services because the ability to profit from services is good for society in general. Without that protection there is little incentive for people to provide those services and society must do without them.
The question I would ask is: what obligates me to pay for it just because theyre paying to send it?
Nothing is obligating you to pay for it. You either purchase the service or you don't. Whether or not enough people choose to purchase it determines whether they keep sending it. But that they are sending it does not give you any inherent right to use it without paying for it anymore than the fact that the bus is going that way anyway means you don't have to pay to ride.
Next your gonna tell me I have to make payments to God for use of the wind.
Oh give me a fucking break. DirecTV is not co-opting some natural occurance and charging you for something that you would have access to anyway. The wind would be there whether or not anyone chose to pay for it. The signal would disappear if nobody paid for it.
Re:miscarriage? (Score:4, Informative)
No matter what your views on the truth of the bible, that Solomon guy sure had some intelligent observations attributed to him.
A step in the right direction, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A step in the right direction, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A step in the right direction, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A [goose]step in the right direction (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost a year ago Poulson [securityfocus.com] told us, "Backed by a legion of lawyers and empowered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, former FBI agents in the company's Office of Signal Integrity have staged raids against businesses that deal in piracy equipment, seizing customer lists and inventory with armed law enforcement officers as backup."
He was not the only one to report that some of the lawsuits were filed against people who didn't even own a satellite dish. (I think Wired News also had an article about this, but I can't dig up the hyperlink at the moment. This boneheaded move predates Murdoch's takeover, by the way.)
I've been making friends and family aware of this fiasco ever since I first heard of it, hoping that none of them will reward with their business what could be described as "extortion".
I wish the names of those who made this decision could be posted somewhere, and archived, before they move on to other employers and continue spreading the contempt.
Of course, a company has every right to resist "criminal" acts. But there is good reason to believe, here, that this firm knew they'd cast the net too widely.
It smells like a money-grab - the easy way out (compared to seeking relief in criminal courts, where there are laws on the books to protect them from the real baddies).
By the same logic they could've been suing anyone who made anything that could have been used to facilitate the "theft". Charming.
<grrr>
Re:A step in the right direction, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
DirecTV also agreed to change its pre-lawsuit demand letters to explain in detail how innocent recipients can get DirecTV to drop their cases. The company also promised that it will investigate every substantive claim of innocence it receives. If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases.
Does evidence that you do use your smart card programming interface/hardware for legitimate purposes count towards the not-well-defined "sufficient" amount of evidence "demonstrating that [you] did not use [your] devices for signal theft"? It's the same old logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative - what evidence do they expect supports the assertion that you did not try to program cards for part of a signal-theft scheme?
They're not very clear on this - though I (generously) presume there's some more practical definition somewhere in the process, . . . but I still think the burden of proof to even start this kind of proceeding should be on the accuser - show some evidence that each potential defendant did commit the crime. It seems that this still leaves plenty of room for harrassing innocent geeks who happen to work for companies who, for example, program industrial security systems, which could have included me a few years ago.
Re:A step in the right direction, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, I can steal cable with this, I'll buy one" compared to "Oh, this will increase my top speed to 175MPH, I'll buy one" That does not mean I actually followed through with any of this and I may have never even opened the box or turned the TV on and watched anything without authorization.
You do not have to go to a sanctioned track once a year to justify owning a car that can break the speed limit.
Hell, you can buy Potassium Perchlorate, fine Aluminum powder, and some timed fuse legally online.
Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The company also promised that it will investigate every substantive claim of innocence it receives. If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases."
Oh, now I have to provide "sufficient evidence" that I'm not guilty? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on their side?
Basically, the bully is going to try to be a little nicer.
Ahh, thanks.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an absolutely disgusting practice.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you're innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law, that is. You'll have to spend a lot of money to get into that court of law, though. If you don't want DirecTV to force you into that court of law, and spend all that money, then you'll have to convince them that it isn't worth their money to do so.
That's all this means. They're going to be slightly more careful in their extortion attempts.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
In short, as long as DirecTV's evidence alone implies that it's more likely than not that you stole their service, you're going to need to put on an affirmative defense to tip the scales back into your favor. They don't need to prove you guilty...
Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, it's not a criminal case, but a civil case. Civil cases are decided on "preponderance of the evidence". "Innocent until proven guilty" is only for criminal cases. The plus side is that the accusation "he has the technology to pirate the signal, therefore he has pirated the signal" is easily refuted by showing a legitimate use for the technology. But, our legal system being as it is, it's usually much cheaper for the defendant to settle the case than to fight it, which is what witch hunts like these (and, oh, the RIAA comes to mind) rely on.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way it makes sence is if one think about the megacorp as a person who is accidentally richer.
Justice for all..with money.
Re:Innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely, and that's what the argument is about. Joe Smart Card finds himself on the end of a lawsuit which will cost him a ton of money even if he wins. It's the cost of the legal process which makes this kind of extortion possible. Some people have suggested a system where the loser pays the winner's legal fees, but th
How to get Direct/RIAA to pay for your litigation (Score:4, Interesting)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) allow for you to make a settlement offer, and if rejected the rejector may have to pay your legal fees.
Rule 68. Offer of Judgment
At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer . The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability. (emphasis added)
So, as soon as you get the "we're suing" papers, and you are completely, "no F'ing way" innocent make a Offer in Judgment of $1. If Direct/RIAA takes the $1 offer, your legal worries are over. If they don't take the offer, you go to trial knowing that if you win, Direct/RIAA must pay your legal fees (from the offer forward).
Now you pay up front while they sue you and it takes your time, but ultimately you get the cash back (provided you win).
What signal theft? EM ripples are property? (Score:3, Interesting)
This whole business of "signal theft" is getting out of hand. The signal was theirs only as long as it was in their circuits, as it could be said that the electrons in their equipment are their personal property.
But the electromagnetic waves induced in space by their transmitters, how the hell can they be property? OK, maybe they induce the near-field boundary disturbance directly, but beyond that the wave is self-inducing and self-propagating.
If the EM signal
So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:3, Insightful)
Actualy, when push comes to shove, DirecTV's content protection scheme is weaker, which is one of the reasons they have such a problem with piracy.
You don't see Dish doing this because there just aren't that many people that actualy pirate the signal.
Re:So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:3, Interesting)
DirecTV doesn't have a problem with piracy right now. They shut down the entire P3 series of cards (the hackable ones) and there is no known hack for the P4 or higher cards. Currently there are hacks for Dish.
Re:So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:5, Informative)
I have had Directv for six years now and have never had those issues. One bad tivo in shipping but nothing like this experience. I'm comparing service on a wide screen CRT and DLP rear screen and dish has much more noticable compression artifacts to my eye. Directv I beleive has the ability to alocate varing ammounts of bandwith on a per channel basis where dish is fixed meaning that cnn dosent look as good as HBO but who cares about CNN but your HBO HD should look great.
Again this is just the comments of one person with a bad experience with dish.
Re:So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't forsee myself buying a smart card reader, but who knows? I'm not one to try and pirate cable/satellite, but I might just be curious and want to poke around with the hardware that I own (I will be buying my own hardware, not leasing it).
Re:So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:4, Informative)
Uhmm... no they don't.
Dish Network == EchoStar
DirecTv == Rupert Murdoch (and friends)
If I recall, they tried to merge awhile back, but were not allowed to.
Re:So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:3, Informative)
There is a reason they are despised in every industry they are in. Rupert Murdoch is a major asshole and everyone knows it. I am pretty sure he prides himself on it.#
I think DirecTV knew from the beginning that there was about a 1-2 year life span on their approach of threatening lawsuits. Once they started filing them, people were going to fig
Re:So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:3, Informative)
The apparent source of all of this was that the show got a "network note" about one of their scripts that mentioned a news ticker underneath Kent Brockman pointing out that if they were going to do that, they'd have to make the headlines funny enough such that somebody just tuning in would not confuse it with the real Fox News ticker. The Simpsons staff th
Re:So... should i go with Dish Network (Score:3, Interesting)
While this is certainly a good start... (Score:4, Interesting)
sad... (Score:4, Interesting)
What are legitimate uses (Score:5, Interesting)
So what exactly are the legitimate uses of having a card programmer?
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:5, Informative)
Why not just to play? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also if I were going to do access control for anything, smart card technology would be the first place I'd look. It is FAR more secure than something like magnetic stripe a
Re:Why not just to play? (Score:4, Interesting)
SmartCards are overkill for straight access control. Unless you're controlling access to encrypted data by keeping a very large key on the card itself, all you need is a unique identifier. Most card-based access control is done with prox cards nowadays. The days of having to stick a card in a slot or swipe one through a reader to open doors are over. The advantages of prox cards are numerous: You can mount the reader at [pocket|purse] level by the door so one doesn't even need to get the card out of one's wallet to enter. You can hide the reader behind a stucco or wood surface of an exterior wall redering it nearly impervious to vandalism. Prox cards aren't susceptible to physical deterioration of the electrical contacts or exposed magnetic stripe.
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:3, Interesting)
A smart card is like a compact flash card in that you can store data on it. The difference is that your reader must communicate with an embedded microcontroller on the card instead of directly with the memory. The microcontroller can control how you access the data which is stored on the card.
A great use of smart cards is in computer security. You can have keys stored on the smart card which are usable by a user (typically a pin, or
I can name legitimate uses for chip cards (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure I had cool ideas for it when I saw how cheap they had gotten. Sure I bought the programmer from a less than reputable source. Sure I plugged it in and played with it for a few hours... Wrote some code. Tossed some ideas around... But it's just another unfinished project. Hell, you could say that I'm a collector of unfinished projects.
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:4, Funny)
> quarters through my window, I'm keeping them, so
> fuck you.
Damn right. They would help pay for the broken glass.
Steve.
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:5, Informative)
The law says it is, regardless of how vociferously you object. Legally speaking it is theft, or to be more specific, theft of services, and is a felony in many states, usually depending on the dollar value of the services that have been stolen. New Jersey law [state.nj.us]. Pennsylvania law [aol.com]. Kentucky law [state.ky.us]. And so forth.
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:4, Insightful)
But, if decoding the signal is "illegal" is it also illegal to measure that signal?
Patently not. If you or anyone else doesn't want me to have the signal, DON'T BEAM IT AT ME.
Got that? If its in MY FUCKING HOUSE, YOU GAVE IT TO ME.
Now, I *do* pay for cable -- go figure. But a BROADCAST SIGNAL?
If it where sufficiently strong, and I rectified it to power my stuff, would this be wrong? NO.
The sunshine that falls on my property is MINE. and the EM that crosses my property is also MINE.
Theft of "service". What a crock of shit that law is.
Ratboy.
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:5, Insightful)
And when you walk past a corporate building, the 802.11b wireless is beaming into your skull as well. Oh wait, your MOTHERFUCKING skull. Sorry. That doesn't mean you are allowed to crack the WEP key and associate to the access point. The situation is no different with cable descramblers. It's coming over the coax into your GODDAMN house. Doesn't mean you can decode the Playboy channel and start watching it. You'd be stealin from Hef.
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:3, Insightful)
His central point was about diminished value. Cracking the WEP key and using that corporate network diminishes capacity on that network. Additional unpaid-for descrambling
Re:What are legitimate uses (Score:3, Interesting)
But suggesting that drug possession isn't legal evidence of drug use (because I might be a researcher working on coccaine addiction, bringing materials to my lab) would be... counterproductive.
Stopping such nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stopping such nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
A little too much credit (Score:5, Informative)
*sigh*......When will they learn?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Backing off because of of the end of older cards? (Score:3, Interesting)
Still guilty until proven innocent... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If purchasers provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that they did not use their devices for signal theft, DirecTV will dismiss their cases. EFF and CIS will monitor reports of this process to confirm that innocent device purchasers are having their cases dismissed."
So you are STILL guilty until proven innocent. This saga is not over yet.
Partly because HU's are dead... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Partly because HU's are dead... (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually not what they're worried about. Your local CBS affiliate wants you to only be able to watch Wheel of Fortune on their channel, because if you can get the California feed, you might decide to watch it at 10:00pm local time on the Cali station instead of at 7:00pm on their station, thereby robbing them of ratings and ad revenue.
More choices are only good for the consumer, which is why businesses
Quite the coincidence, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone thinks this is due to the EFF's hard work. As much as I have great respect for the EFF and honor thier initiatives, this deceision was not due to thier hard work.
DirecTV swapped out thier P3 cards and shut down mass piracy in April. They have sued over 24000 people. With piracy down to 0 for them, they will have a hard time convincing courts since thier arguments are not nearly as strong without all of those web sites hawking hacked cards. I think this agreement to be a "kinder and gentler DirecTV " is purely due to them cleaning up the stream, and not the hard work of the EFF. If there were still 1000s of hacked cards out there, rest assured, DirecTV would continue its extortion campaign.
not a coincident (Score:4, Interesting)
There really is only one way to stop this (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way to stop stuff like this is to apply that standard to the civilian business world on criminal activity. Don't punish the stockholders by fining the company because Mr. Big Rich White CEO claims he didn't know what was going on. Bullshit, he was hired specifically to know what at a minimum his underlings were doing. Can you imagine the fallout of an army major saying "gee Mr. JAG Officer, I had no idea that lieutenant smith was killing civilians while we were occupying this village." The JAG would laugh his ass off as military police escorted at least the lt. and probably the major too off to a brig.
Personal responsibility is out of style in America today. We want power, but so many don't want the responsibilities that come with it. Look at the female general who is trying to cry like a little girl that she "didn't know that the abuse was going on in Abu Ghraib." Bullshit. With a command that small in such tight quarters you'd have to know. Let the DirecTV executives get hit directly instead of the company and that will scare off anyone that would follow in their footsteps.
Re:There really is only one way to stop this (Score:4, Insightful)
Um.... isn't that exactly what's happening with the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib?
You know what Im sick of? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You know what Im sick of? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's part of the campaign to equate copyright infringement with theft of property.
Signal interception and trespassing (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, their signal is entering my property without permission.
OK, so maybe that's a bit far-fetched. Nonetheless, their signal is broadcast, I cannot help but intercept it. Anytime I stand outside, their signal is bombarding my body. Why should it be illegal for me to interpret a signal that I am receiving?
Not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what DirecTV was doing, and it's what the RIAA is doing now. This has GOT to stop.
Re:Not good enough (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone threats to sue someone or asks for a settlement, that someone should be able to call "bullshit". And if they can't prove their case in a court of law, they must pay fines. I know one can countersue, but they actually have to sue you first."
How about a law that forces a corporation to pay the legal fees of a non-corporation defendant in civil matters (which then can be added to the judgement if the defendant wins)?
That would stop such harassment actions cold, as corps would be less liely to pursue meritless cases...
In criminal cases you are entitled to legal representation, whether you can afford it or not. That right does not exist in the civil courts. I think it should, and I think the initiator, if not an individual or a non-incorporated entity should have to bear the burden, not the state.
It's still guilty until proven innocent... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some progress has been made, but not nearly enough. DirecTV will still threaten people for mere possession of devices, and you're at their mercy as to what constitutes "sufficient evidence" that you didn't steal their signal.
Legal Extortion (Score:4, Insightful)
Settlement payout: $3,000.
Take your pick. That is why many people settled.
Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
I had to change one of my DirecTV cards recently, they sent me a new one and told me what to do to change cards. This helps them prevent theft.
As for the argumet that the signal is beamed into your skull, so is paying for a movie ticket and then claiming you have a right to videotape the movie. You are violating copyright laws by making an illegal copy for the purposes of using it later or selling it or distributing it. Just like those FBI Warnings on VHS tapes, for viewing purposes only, no recording. DirecTV subscribers have the right to decode the signal and make copies of broadcasts for viewing purposes, but not to spread around and sell, etc. If you do not have a DirecTV subscription, you do not have a right to their media, peroid.
Just like the Police 911 CB signals are also beamed into your skulls does not give you the right to broadcast on that signal.
Use common sense for once, seesh! Quit being such a cheapskate and actually pay for something for once.
Spurious Comparisons (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, if you're going to make the argument, think it through. Decoding a satellite signal is not the same thing as:
eating the food in my fridge
using my telephone
not paying a cab fare
shoplifting DVDs
setting fire to pre-schools
dropping an atomic bomb on Hollywood*
Let's have a rational debate, please.
* I'm all in favor of nuking Hollywood, but this is for reasons unrelated to DirecTV hacking
How exactly ISN'T this extortion anymore now? (Score:3, Insightful)
And this just in... (Score:3, Informative)
Hit 'em where it hurts (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that we are totally without recourse. I took great joy in personally killing a six-digit contract that Hughes Network Systems was virtually guaranteed to win because of their sister divison's actions. The salesperson probably has a picture of me on his dartboard thanks to the smirk I wore when I told him the fate of the deal he thought was a slam dunk.
Supporting the ACLU and the EFF is all well and good, but derailing the money train is a far more effective tool for getting a company's attention. It also feels pretty good, too.
Gladiatorial Combat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguments about "if the signal reaches my house I should be able to use it" aside, this is how the law stands, and that's who they should be after.
It's like the diffence between an xbox mod with a hardcoded version of a hacked MS bios vs doing it yourself with a blank EEPROM. The first is an infringement if it ships out with MS's IP (which is why all current mods ship out blank, or with cromwell), the second is just a stock part you can get at any decent electronics shop.
Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual (Score:5, Informative)
Bootloaders as well have legitimate uses....they can be used for retrieving critical data off physically damaged smartcards.
If the wording of the EFF's statement is held true, and DTV actually INVESTIGATES these purchases rather than carpet bombing the customer lists with extortion letters, then it will be what we've wanted since the beginning. This is only half.
Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, but the reason that many people bought programmers with those capabilities was that those programmers were cheaper than programmers without those capabilities.
So now people should be sued for trying to save a buck?
Re:Nice spin from the EFF as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And stealing from DirecTV isn't illegal either. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a BIG difference here between the two. Stealing music is one thing. You actively go to a website or P2P network specifically to find a particular song/album, and then actively download it. In other words, its a pull.
Getting DirecTV is, ultimately no different than getting your local channels via the old rabbit ears. DirecTV beams that signal with a VERY wide footprint to the earth, using RF. Its really silly to tell someone that they are not allowd to recieve a RF signal that is being sent directly to your house.
They are using regulations that were put up to prevent cable theft (again, not the same thing as simply recieving RF signals from an orbiting satellite) to ensure a revenue stream. Satellite is a push, not a pull. That data is pushed directly to your property, you dont pull it to you.
Cable theft is again different as well, as you plug a device directly to the cable company's property (the cable line) and actively pull data from their equipment to your television.
Now, if the wanted to sue someone, they could base it on a breech of contract for using a non-directTV provided card, or for opening the case of the reciever, or something of that nature (which would require writing such language into the contract, but suing somenone for using equipment that they purchased, not leased, to recieve a signal that is already being pushed to their house is ludicrous.
God bless the EFF.
Re:well duh (Score:4, Informative)
DirecTV is/was suing people who purchased practically any bit of smartcard equipment from dealers (not just unloopers).
Their lawsuits were vaguely worded (other than the parts about them demanding $10,000 fines *per device purchased*. A passive PCB purchase landed you a $10K "fine".
DirecTVs actions took advantage of the fact that most people would be either too scared, or lacking the funding, to fight their corporate lawyer army.
The lawsuits even covered people who purchased equipment from the H-Card era, it has nothing to do with them shutting down the HU streams.