DirecTV pursues alleged signal thefts

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

[mvpel]

So if someone doesn't put a deadbolt and bar on their front door, and instead has only a small, flimsy lock there, it's okay for someone to break the lock and help themselves to the person's silverware?

There's two issues here - I'll grant that DirecTV is going overboard by suing anyone with a programmer regardless of whether they can demonstrate it was used to decrypt DirecTV signals.

But I will certainly not dispute the fact that DirecTV has a right to encrypt and charge for their content, and pursue those who obtain their content without paying for it, regardless of the manner in which they choose to encrypt it.

[Mamzelle]

re: Even if Joe Blow wins his case in court he still has to pay the lawyer.)))

Of course--the defendant in ANY civil case ALWAYS loses.

All the defendants should gather together and pursue the possibility of a class-action counter-suit...

[Dog Gone]

I don't know how much these things cost, but unless they cost less than the price of return postage, I don't think it's terribly credible that he threw it away. At a minimum, you'd think that he'd try to get a copy of the directions.

I think he threw it away after he got the demand letter.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

In the America of the future all economic activity will consist of lawsuits. I think the mass targeting of people by DirecTV is a foretaste of what is to come. If you have a son or daughter about to enter college, tell them to forget engineering, medicine, etc. Law school will be the only ticket to fame and fortune.

[martin_fierro]

What's different here is that many of the "pirating devices" in DirecTV's suits are actually general-purpose smartcard programmers. DirecTV has combed the customer lists of companies who sell these programmers and has autogenerated suits against everybody who merely purchased a smartcard programmer. The promblem is, most of the people targeted have nothing to do with signal piracy.

Assuming those statements are true, they could result in the lawsuits being thrown out via Summary Judgement before a trial even takes place.

But they're not evident from the article:

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.

Makes it sound like there ARE no legitimate uses for the hardware in question. Based on the article, then, layman could be forgiven if he equated the activities here with, say, use of a stolen cable box.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The public airwaves USED to be owned by the public.

The signal is encrypted. The encryption keys are not public, nor is copyrighted material. I don't know how the frequency/orbital slots are allocated but DirecTV may be paying for their use. If DirecTV could not profit from the transmissions, they would have no incentive to broadcast them, and all such transmissions would soon cease. (I know the someone is getting ad revenues.)

If you decided to break the encryption for your own private use, I doubt they would have a case. Most likely, the sellers of the descramblers violated agreements they signed in order to reverse engineer the equipment. If I were on a jury I would be hard pressed to believe that anyone innocently purchased an after-market descrambler.

[clamper1797]

From ... http://www.directvdefense.org/

Smartcards are an important, and legal, branch of emerging technology, but satellite TV giant DirecTV has launched a legal campaign that threatens smartcard researchers and innovators. Over the past few years, the company has sent hundreds of thousands of demand letters and filed nearly 18,000 federal lawsuits in response to the mere purchase of smart card readers, emulators, unloopers, reprogrammers, bootloaders, and blockers. The satellite TV company accuses techies – some of whom threw out their televisions in favor of the Internet long ago – of using these devices to illegally intercept its signals. But the smart card readers and their various derivatives are capable of so much more: they secure computer networks, enable user-based identification, and further scientific discovery. People who intercept DirectTV’s satellite signal are breaking the law. However, DirecTV’s cease and desist letter campaign does not distinguish the legitimate users from the thieves. This website is meant as a legal resource for the legitimate computer scientists, technology workers, and hobbyists who are being harassed by DirecTV's no holds-barred slash-and-burn legal strategy. This site provides scientists, researchers, innovators and their lawyers with the resources necessary to fight DirecTV and protect their right to own and use multi-purpose technology for its legal applications – and without fear of reprisal.

Smartcards are an important, and legal, branch of emerging technology, but satellite TV giant DirecTV has launched a legal campaign that threatens smartcard researchers and innovators. Over the past few years, the company has sent hundreds of thousands of demand letters and filed nearly 18,000 federal lawsuits in response to the mere purchase of smart card readers, emulators, unloopers, reprogrammers, bootloaders, and blockers. The satellite TV company accuses techies – some of whom threw out their televisions in favor of the Internet long ago – of using these devices to illegally intercept its signals. But the smart card readers and their various derivatives are capable of so much more: they secure computer networks, enable user-based identification, and further scientific discovery.

People who intercept DirectTV’s satellite signal are breaking the law. However, DirecTV’s cease and desist letter campaign does not distinguish the legitimate users from the thieves. This website is meant as a legal resource for the legitimate computer scientists, technology workers, and hobbyists who are being harassed by DirecTV's no holds-barred slash-and-burn legal strategy. This site provides scientists, researchers, innovators and their lawyers with the resources necessary to fight DirecTV and protect their right to own and use multi-purpose technology for its legal applications – and without fear of reprisal.

Oregon Professor Files Amicus In Support of DirecTV's 11th Circuit Appeal Joseph Metcalfe, a professor at University of Oregeon School of Law has filed an amicus brief in support of DirecTV's 11th Circuit appeal over the 18 U.S.C. 2512/2520 issue. All Amicus in support of defendant are due 7 days after defendant files his brief, which is by January 5.

posted on [ Dec 20 03 at 1:37 AM ] DirecTV appeals loss of Count III "possession" claim to 11th Circuit

DirecTV has appealed one of its Count III/Section 2512 losses to the 11th Circuit. Their appeal brief is here. The District Court order is here. Defendant's brief is due January 5th. No word yet on if/when the 11th Circuit will hear oral argument.

posted on [ Nov 3 03 at 2:00 PM ]
Another win! This time in Western District of Michigan. From the Opinion (10/22/03): "McFadden has presented evidence showing that he purchased the device from White Viper with the intent of using it for something other than intercepting DirecTV's sattelite transmission. McFadden has also shown that he did not intercept or attempt to intercept DirecTV's satellite transmission. This evidence is sufficient to defeat DirecTV's claims." The docket is here.

posted on [ Oct 31 03 at 12:53 PM ]
Summary Judgment Granted in favor of End User in TX!
In a Memorandum and Order dated October 24, 2003, Judge Sim Lake of the Southern District of Texas, U.S. District Court GRANTED Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant Winston Bush and against DirecTV on all claims in its Complaint. DirecTV v. Winston Bush, Case No.: H-03-1765, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The final judgment is brief and to the point. Entry on freedomfight.ca

posted on [ Oct 29 03 at 12:37 PM ]
Leave to appeal in the Treworthy case
Leave to appeal in the Treworthy case (11th Circuit) has been granted pursuant to 1292(b). This appeal will test the question of whether mere possession of devices capable of intercepting DirecTV signal states a civil claim under 18 U.S.C. 2512, or whether DirecTV must prove actual interception. The docket sheet for the appeal is located here. No word yet on when the appeal will be heard.

posted on [ Oct 23 03 at 4:57 PM ]
New Class Action v. DirecTV
A group of California lawyers has filed a new class action lawsuit against DirecTV alleging vioaltions of Federal Racketeering (RICO) Laws based on their current End User enforcement campaign.

Check out the compaint under our "Case Files" section here.

posted on [ Sep 2 03 at 11:53 AM ]
South Carolina Court Dismisses DTV Cases based on "mere possession"

Check out the new postings on the Case Files page, especially the McKay case where the Court dismissed DirecTV's case because they failed to show that the Defendant did anything more than purchase smart card technology. Without evidence that a Defendant also had subscribed to DTV, had a DTV Integrated Receiver/Decoder, and a DTV satellite dish, DTV could not sustain their case.

posted on [ Aug 26 03 at 12:36 PM ]
Updates
Additional attorneys have been added to the Attorney Directory. To submit your practice, please do so here.
posted on [ Aug 14 03 at 8:51 PM ]
Site Launch
Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, August 12, 2003
DirecTV Defense Website Aids Users Caught in Legal Dragnet
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Stanford Law Clinic Sponsors
San Francisco and Palo Alto, CA - A digital rights organization and a Stanford Law School clinic today launched a website providing resources for smart card users targeted by DirecTV's cease-and-desist letters and nearly 18,000 smart-card-related lawsuits.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society (CIS) Cyberlaw Clinic published the DirecTV Defense website that provides scientists, researchers, innovators, and their lawyers, with the information necessary to protect their right to own and use multi-purpose technology for legal applications.

Over the past few years, satellite transmission giant DirecTV has launched a nationwide campaign that threatens to bankrupt thousands of Americans and destroy an entire branch of emerging technology. The company has sent hundreds of thousands of demand letters and filed nearly 9,000 federal lawsuits in response to the purchase of smart card readers, emulators, unloopers, reprogrammers, bootloaders, and blockers.

Smart card readers and their various derivatives have many legitimate uses, including computer security and scientific research. However, DirecTV has made no effort to distinguish between these legal uses and illegal satellite theft. As a result, DirecTV has threatened innocent researchers and hobbyists who have never intercepted the satellite giant's signal with legal action unless they pay up.

"DirecTV has threatened a smart card programmer trying to secure his art installation, as well as network administrators and engineers, all of whom are using smart cards for legitimate purposes like security or access control," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "The DirecTV Defense website provides resources to help technology purchasers who aren't doing anything wrong stand up to DirecTV's intimidation tactics because simply using smart card technology is not a crime."

"Developments in smart card technology provide exciting opportunities within a new branch of computer science," said CIS Director Jennifer Granick. "DirecTV should not scare legitimate innovators away from promising new technologies with baseless lawsuits."

[clamper1797]

I think he threw it away after he got the demand letter

BULL ... the first one I received was defective and NEVER worked ... it's now collecting dust in my lab cause it wasn't worth the time or effort to send it back ...

BTW my lab door is secured by ... you guessed it ... a smart card ... one of the now defunct Directv P1's programmed by my new programmer.

Directv does NOT own the cards either ... in case you thought otherwise.

[Dog Gone]

That why Directv won't install any longer without a land line attached.

I have three DirecTV receivers, none of which are connected to a land line. I order an occastional pay per view event over the internet.

[clamper1797]

Is this a crime or a tort? I mean, DirectTV is suing but is also accusing the defendant of a crime

There in lies the rub ... yes it IS a crime to intercept and decode the signal but Directv knows that they would have to prove that their signal was actually intercepted ... and they know they can't. So they sue in civil court just for possession of a programmer ... no matter if the use is legitimate or not. They are banking on the fact that most people can't afford to defend themselves and settle for the $3500. Directv has YET to win a case against an end user. I listed a couple of end user "wins" against Directv BUT bear in mind that those people had to pay many thousands of dollars for their lawyers. If it were a "loser pays" system ... Directv would NOT be doing this

[Dog Gone]

To the extent that DirecTV is harrassing innocent purchasers of these products, that is wrong. But we've both seen how these things are marketed, and you'll have a very tough time convincing me that most buyers are innocent people who have no intention of getting DirecTV without paying for it.

[Defiant]

There are countless uses for this technology. This technology does NOT belong to Direct nor do they have a patent on it. BUT Directv found it in themselves to sue ANYONE who bought a programmer no matter what the purpose was without ANY investigation.

I would be happy to bring a malicious prosecution case on behalf of anyone who bought one of these devices for legitimate purposes and who was sued by DirecTV without any investigation. It seems for probable cause for them to sue someone who bought this device which has legitimate uses, they need more information that the person used it to steal DirecTV.

[clamper1797]

Well then you are very uninformed. I guess you've never checked into a hotel that uses a card as a room key. The old technology cards are magnetic. The new technology is ... you guessed it is the cheaper and more reliable ISO 7816 compliant smart cards. The same ones that Directv uses. Microsoft has the smartcard software in XP.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Radio waves in this context are just like DVD's or CD's etc.

CD's and DVD's don't pass through my body, or come beaming into my home without permission. Actually, in this context, the only way the signal is even vaguely similar to a CD, etc., is if the CD or DVD is mailed to you without you ordering it. Under the rules regarding mail, if someone mails something to you without you ordering it, it belongs to you. DirecTV does not own the space-time continuum. If they want to make people pay, they are going to have to come up with a better system of encryption, or perhaps generate revenue from letter-box ads that are on-screen during normal programming.

[clamper1797]

It seems for probable cause for them to sue someone who bought this device which has legitimate uses, they need more information that the person used it to steal DirecTV.

That's the point ... if they can prove that a person is intercepting their signal then more power to em. BUT suing every person that bought a programmer that "could" be used to intercept their signal is way way out of line.

[martin_fierro]

Man. Where to begin.

The news is that they don't have to actually prove theft, they are making prosecutions and getting convictions based on spurious circumstanial evidence.

1. DirecTv doesn't "prosecute" anything -- that's up to the State. If DirecTv files a criminal complaint, the A.G.'s office decides whether to prosecute or not. But no criminal complaints are mentioned in this article. We're talking CIVIL LAWSUITS here.

2. According to the article, "as of mid-December, none of the 18,000 lawsuits filed throughout the country has gone to trial." What convictions are you talking about?

3. The article mentions settlements being reached, without getting into the details thereof. Settlements can contain ANYTHING -- including something as innocuous as, "Plaintiff DirecTv hereby agrees to drop its civil lawsuit if defendant promises never to use the SmartCard reader/writer to pirate DirecTv's subscription-only signal."

If you are a Direct TV customer and own a smart card reader/writer then you are presumed guilty.

Again, show me a single criminal conviction in this piece.

Smart cards are used for a myriad of applications and are now quite common. was in the smart card business for many years and have lots of related equipment.

If true, all well and good. This may account for the fact that none of these lawsuits have gone through to trial. But see my response in #45 -- the legitimate uses of the technology in question (or even the term "SmartCard") aren't mentioned ANYWHERE in the article.

Prosecuting someone on the basis that they had the means to steal the signal is like prosecuting you or I for bank robbery because we own fast cars.

Believe me, if SmartCards' other potential legitimate uses are raised in a defense, and DirecTv can't show a link between a defendant's SmartCard reader/writer and piracy, the case won't pass the laugh test.

[Rockpile]

Have you any idea if other satellite TV providers are also attacking the public like Direct is? Out here on the rural route there is no cable and I've debated getting a dish for several years. Obviously it ain't going to be Direct TV.

[Publius6961]

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...

Reading verbal contortions or selective logic is always amusing. And you definitely lost me with that last sentence. All the utilities you initially mentioned are real, physical can be seen and measured. Using any of them diminishes what is available from the provider for use by someone else. Using your logic, the fact that Direct-TV signals are bombarding me as we speak, should obligate me for paying for them. An obvious non-sense. The comparison is totally and clearly fallacious.

No, I have not ever nor do I now use DirectTV, illegally or otherwise. Nor would I ever use a service that requires me to have a telephone line permanently attached to it.

[clamper1797]

Understand ... Directv is not just suing people for buying the programmers but are also suing them for buying ANY equipment that could remotely be used to decrypt their signal including the smart cards. They have recently even sued people for just posting on the chatrooms that some of these sites have.