DirecTV pursues alleged signal thefts

Bangor News ^ | 12/27/03 | Judy Harrison

[Holly_P]

BANGOR - Pirates of the airwaves, beware.

The nation's largest satellite television service is willing to do almost anything - including suing its subscribers in federal court - to fight against the theft of its signal.

DirecTV Inc. has sued 18,000 people in the past year, including seven in U.S. District Court in Bangor and four in federal court in Portland.

"We are attacking up and down the entire food chain of the pirate community, from the demand side to the supply side," Robert Mercer, director of public relations for the California-based firm, has said. "There's no pattern to it. Pirates come in all shapes, sizes and geographic locations. They all have one thing in common - they're all guilty of theft."

The company obtains the names and addresses of people who have purchased pirating devices through financial records seized from law enforcement raids on the manufacturers and distributors of satellite pirating devices.

Some of the devices are designed to capture DirecTV's signal without paying subscriber fees; others are used by subscribers to pirate services such as pay-per-view. All were ordered over the Internet.

The latest round of lawsuits filed in Bangor stemmed from a raid on the California-based Computer Shanty two years ago. Four Maine residents - living in Calais, Brownville, Newcastle and Bangor - were served notice of the lawsuits this month.

Suits against two Aroostook County residents and one in Washington County were dismissed earlier this year, after settlements apparently were reached. The names and addresses of the defendants were found in the records of a different distributor, according to court documents.

Mercer said earlier this month that DirecTV first sends a series of "demand letters" asking people to surrender pirating devices, sign written agreements not to use pirating devices again, and pay a monetary fee for the services the satellite TV company estimates were stolen.

That fee starts around $3,500 and can go higher, depending on the number of devices purchased, said Mercer.

"Once we go to court, people are looking at $10,000 per device plus attorney's fees," he said. "People are well-advised to settle upfront. Stealing a satellite TV signal is illegal. You can get caught and there are serious consequences."

Ignoring the demand letters may lead to a federal lawsuit, but ignoring the lawsuit is far more serious, if a recent case is any indication. DirecTV is asking a federal judge to enter a judgment for more than $140,000 against a Freeport man who has not responded to a lawsuit filed in May.

In the latest spate of suits filed in Bangor, just one man has replied so far.

In a letter dated Dec. 7, the 73-year-old Bangor man admitted that he purchased the device and that it arrived without directions but with a warning. He stated that he threw the device into the trash without ever using it.

The man stated that he had informed the company that he had never used the device when the first demand letter arrived in the mail. He also informed the court that he is seeking a jury trial.

If the Bangor man's case is deliberated by a jury, it might be the first in the country to get that far. According to Mercer, as of mid-December, none of the 18,000 lawsuits filed throughout the country has gone to trial.

From his office in El Segundo, Calif., Mercer used an analogy for the theft of satellite television signals he thought might ring true for Mainers.

"It's kind of like moose hunting on Sunday from a pickup truck without a license," he said.

[martin_fierro]

The nation's largest satellite television service is willing to do almost anything - including suing its subscribers in federal court - to fight against the theft of its signal.

Subtext: "Ooooh, that evil Rupert Murdoch!"

Cable companies have done this for years. Where's the news?

[agitator]

This is nothing but extortion. The public airwaves USED to be owned by the public. Furthermore, I'd love to see Directv actually PROVE that somebody received their signal and watched their content without paying for it. Oh, I forgot. Proving anything isn't necessary in American courts anymore. This is nothing but Directv making up for the fact that they're not capable of securing their delivery network.

[DryFly]

Actual interception of the signal has to be proved, and, judging from personal experience of a client, DirecTV is willing to harass subscribers and others when it knows full well that it is unable to prove actual interception. DirecTV and its attorneys could be facing some hefty Rule 11 sanctions if they don't watch out.

[agitator]

In theory that's nice, in reality, when their legions of staff lawyers bury the average guy in paper he's going to cave. And if he shows up in court by himself and simply says all he has to say, i.e., "prove it," the judge is going to defecate all over him. Judges don't like peons who don't pay tribute to a fellow member of the club for the privilege of showing up in court. Not every state has loser pays either. So the bottom line is that if he doesn't pay extortion to directv, he'll pay it to a lawyer.

[agitator]

On top of that, this crap should never even be showing up in court in the first place. The public USED to own the airwaves until a few politicians decided it was more important to protect the contents of their cell phone calls to their mistresses than it was to protect the public property.

[Sir_Ed]

"This is nothing but extortion. The public airwaves USED to be owned by the public."

Absolutely!!

How can it be STEALING to receive radio waves?!

That'd be like Red Lobster suing me because I smelled their lobsters cooking as I walked by their building...

Or the New York Times suing me because I saw their headlines as I walked past the newstand in Times Square!

Ed

[LibWhacker]

If they say it's theft, I suppose it's theft. But I've got to admit I've never understood why it's theft. I mean, if I drive down the street and throw a handful of pennies into somebody's window, I can't sue him for picking the money up off his floor and spending it. That seems to be exactly what DirecTV is doing: Flying their satellites around the world throwing their signal into people's homes.

[agitator]

It became stealing when politicians discovered that their analog (now obsolete) cell phone calls could be overheard by a citizen listening to his own property (the public airwaves) with a scanner. As usual, to hell with the public, the convenience of the cell phones to politicians was more important than protecting the people's right to use their own property. A 90+ year recognition that the airwaves belong to the public went out the window over just that. Your tax dollars at work.

[metesky]

You're correct that this is nothing but extortion, but it's also symptomatic of another problem: the continued dumbing down of our native criminal class.

What smart crook gets his career off the ground by buying over the internet using his own credit card?

Fagin is rolling over in his fictional grave.

[DB]

You have it right. It all went wrong with protecting cell phones.

It was the first time in the history of this country that it was illegal to own a radio that received certain frequencies.

Very wrong.

I still say it is the responsibility of the satellite people (or any wireless service) to protect their signals with suitable encryption at their expense and not through the courts. If they can’t, their business model shouldn’t be considered viable.

Add to that cordless phones for household use have no such protection. What makes cell phones any different?

Answer: Bigger lobby...

[EUPHORIC]

How can it be STEALING to receive radio waves?!

Now come on... Think about it... Radio waves are not like air which is produced by the environment and necessary for life etc.

Radio waves in this context are just like DVD's or CD's etc. Just because it is out there and you can get to it with a gadget does not make it free. Especially when an entity has taken steps to obfuscate or encrypt a signal and you pay money to a third party for a device that sidesteps that.

Why does everyone think that just because it is transmitted via RF it is public domain? YES! You can watch it for free but ONLY if the entity transmitting it has not taken steps to ensure that you pay for their investment in the content they transmit.

Get used to the fact that the world has evolved and nowdays we are not just listening and viewing stuff sent out by RF on a free for all basis. Some is free. Some is not.

Watch the Socialist propaganda on the broadcast network channels if you don't like paying a reasonable fee to see the good stuff. And pray that the good stuff comes BACK to what is occupied by the left SOON.

I am an engineer and I work with smart cards and other interesting things and I could EASILY rip DirectTV or Dish or whatever but I refuse to and do not and never have because I like what I get from my Dish and hate the crap that is free on broadcast TV.

And a few bucks a month to get what I enjoy is 100% well worth it.

[I_dmc]

Its not stealing to receive radio waves. It is stealing to receive radio waves and decode proprietary content that they are carrying and then use that content (view it).

[goldstategop]

Exactly. The same is true of TV content. I don't like scofflaws getting a free ride at the expense of honest subscribers. Throw the book at 'em.

[Lokibob]

Yes, it is called "theft of services"

Just because the power company has power coming to the service box doesn't give you the right to hook to that box without paying.

The internet is free, but you don't have the right to download and use copyrighted material without permission.

[goldstategop]

Yep. And if you steal, you do the time... or pay for the crime.

[not-alone]

If they have a phone line to use pay for view it is easy to prove. That why Directv won't install any longer without a land line attached. Directv can now tell how many receivers you have , what programing you are using etc.

[Skooz]

Cool.

DirectTV has stated that piracy causes satellite costs to rise. So, my monthly bill should decrease any time now.

[MarkL]

If they say it's theft, I suppose it's theft. But I've got to admit I've never understood why it's theft. I mean, if I drive down the street and throw a handful of pennies into somebody's window, I can't sue him for picking the money up off his floor and spending it. That seems to be exactly what DirecTV is doing: Flying their satellites around the world throwing their signal into people's homes.

I guess I don't know if I agree with you... This is sort of like saying that you don't need to pay for your utilities, since they're delivered to your house. You don't need to pay your water, gas, or electric, since the connection's there. Of course, you only pay for what you use, and there is a way to prove what you do use. And if you don't pay, they will turn off the service... Then again, by encrypting the signal, DirecTV is doing the same thing... By buying a pirating device, you're doing the equivalent of going to a hardware store and buying the tools to turn the utilities back on, without paying for the service. At that point (turning your electric or water service back on without paying for it), would you consider that to be theft?

Mark

[Skooz]

Frgive the commercial interrutption, but.....

Fire Greg Robinson.com beckons all Chiefs fans. Do your duty, soldier.