http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/v...tw=wn_tophead_4

DirecTV has been waging a war on piracy that makes the record labels look nonchalant. The company has filed about 10,000 lawsuits and mailed more than 100,000 "demand letters" giving suspected pirates a brutal choice: Pay $3,500 to settle or go to court. Problem is, the campaign targets anyone who bought smartcard programming gear from certain merchants; officials just assume it's used for hacking. Is that fair? DirecTV enforcement chief Larry Rissler thinks so. - Lucas Graves

WIRED: Those $3,500 settlement checks must be generating a nice little revenue stream. Has it put a dent in DirecTV's losses due to piracy?
RISSLER: We've never quantified the number who are stealing or quantified the losses. We do view it as a serious problem, and we're taking serious measures to address it.

How successful have you been?
By the number of Web sites we've taken down, the number of law enforcement actions we've taken, and the number of people who've been contacted by our end-user development group, it makes sense to say we've had an impact.

Your letters don't distinguish between pirates and people who program smartcards for legitimate reasons, like security systems. Why not?
If an individual claims to have a legitimate use, he or she can furnish information - a business plan, maybe schematics - and our staff will evaluate it. In at least 20 cases, DirecTV chose not to pursue the matter after the individual provided background.

You're putting the burden of proof on the accused.
There's a legal presumption that the purchase of the device implies use, and the burden switches to the defendant to show that it was used in a legitimate manner. We're talking about products that came into existence because of the satellite piracy industry.

But a lot of the equipment itself is perfectly legal.
That's correct. We also look at the Web sites these things are sold on. We're not going after people who purchased devices from Hewlett-Packard's site. We're going after people who purchased devices from pirate sites like White Viper. Anyone who looks at these sites would see the red flags.

What about the innocents who wanted to steal but were too dumb to make it work?
If they can convince a jury that was the case, then they prevail.

- Lucas Graves


Since when is it on the accused to provide the burden of proof?

Now where would you get a smart card programing box? Dont you need software too?

You do need an HU loader to program the card, but they are relatively cheap on the Internet. This is also legal in some countries, that's how they get away with it.

This type of signal theft is pretty rampant on the satellite TV system. The software is available on the Internet as well, as whenever the new card they issue is hacked, someone posts it.

Sounds pretty risky to me!

It is. To be honest, I haven't dealt with this in a couple of years. We did a demo once on the show to see how it was done. I thought they would have changed the cards by now, but evidently it is still a problem.

The issue with DirecTV and their crackdown, is that the cards can be used for other purposes besides signal theft. The way that they are going after people, is that if you purchased a card from a questionable supplier known to engage in this kind of activity, then you are automatically presumed to be a signal pirate. So either pay $3500 or be sued. It's on you to prove you weren't using it for pirating satellite TV.

The reason for the presumption of innocence in this country is because it is very nearly impossible to prove a negative hypothesis. These people are 'way outside the Constitution; and I hope someone takes them down (same for Acacia).

It seems like the presumption of innocence is nearly dead. Especially with the influx of media into the courtrooms and families' homes.

The big sniper cases are here in VA Beach and Chesapeake; they moved them here from the Fairfax areas in the hopes to get a fair trial for the sniper pair. Are you kidding? This area was just as afraid that the snipers would come here as the Fairfax community was afraid they'd come back. Television gave us nearly hourly updates on the situation. Trying to find someone who didn't already have a presumption of guilt in this entire *state* would be nearly impossible.

Think of OJ. The whole thing was prime-time candy. By the time the prosecution had their evidence ready and were in court, everyone was already convinced by the media coverage that OJ was guilty. They still are, even though he was found in court not to be.

It's no different with non-criminal cases. If someone accuses you of doing something, it's now up to you to prove your innocence rather than the accuser to prove you're actually doing it. The accusation has already been made and now you've got that label hanging over your head.

How I so fervently wish that the US would adopt the UK's practice of "loser pays". I don't understand why this wasn't done decades ago, and I don't know why there's no one up in front of Congress stomping their foot demanding that this be changed. With a simple change to "loser pays", we would rid ourselves of so many frivilous lawsuits that the court system might actually see a manageable end to the huge backlog of cases that are before it.



Last edited by Carrie at Oct 27 2003, 08:41 AM

Carrie says: "How I so fervently wish that the US would adopt the UK's practice of "loser pays". I don't understand why this wasn't done decades ago, and I don't know why there's no one up in front of Congress stomping their foot demanding that this be changed. With a simple change to "loser pays", we would rid ourselves of so many frivilous lawsuits that the court system might actually see a manageable end to the huge backlog of cases that are before it."

Yes, frivolous lawsuits are a bitch. Losers who file these type of lawsuits should go to prison! :agrin:

I agree. That's why I always make sure the ones we file have full merit, plenty of backup documentation, witnesses and evidence.

:biglaugh:

However:

I have to admit I'm torn on this issue - I don't want the innocent prosecuted, but OTOH, I'm not pleased that I'm paying $100 a month and people are stealing it. :angry:

You're right, Peaches. No one likes to see the prices of service driven up because of events that are no fault of your own. However, there are rules that say you have to show that the plaintiff is guilty of an act before you can attempt to persecute them or seek monetary damages. DirecTV is not following these rules, and should get smacked for trying to extort money from these people, whom they have not proven pirated their signal. They should have a mechanism in place that is able to track who is paying for the signal, and who is not.

They need to show that these people who are claiming that they purchased the cards for other reasons, have a dish in their house and no legal smart cards for use.

From what I read (and note that this was several months ago so things could easily have changed), DirecTV was matching up the smart card sales orders with DirecTV's customer list therefore insuring they had a dish AND were buying the smartcards.

I have a friend who buys these and has them mailed to his mother's house because she doesn't have a dish. :ph34r:

Yes, mistakes happen as they do in anything, but again, from what I can tell, they ARE giving those who claim to have bought the smartcards for legitmate purchases to prove it.

Actually, they have shut down several sites and have grabbed those customer lists. Then they have written those customers and told them to pay $3500 or be sued. It is up to the customer to then provide proof that they have done nothing wrong. So they are assuming wrongdoing, with very sketchy circumstantial evidence.

I'm not saying that those people haven't done anything wrong, just worried because they are assumed guilty without any real, tangible proof. The burden of proof should be on DirecTV, and not on the individual to prove their innocence.

Ah - I didn't realize that - I thought they were comparing them with their customer base.

Then yes, they are extorting them. :angry:

I'm too much of a scaredy cat to try and do anything like this - with my luck, I'd be the first one caught, lol! :headwall:

Same goes here. :D

girlgeek says: "I agree. That's why I always make sure the ones we file have full merit, plenty of backup documentation, witnesses and evidence."

I also agree. My lawsuits are always backed up with excellent attornies, lots of evidence, radio tapes, witnesses, depositions, and the facts. Haven't lost a lawsuit yet. It pays to be prepared. It also helps that I have never been convicted of a crime.

Direct TV better behave themselves. :rokk:

I know that you certainly aren't insinuating that I have any kind of criminal record.

I know what you are trying to do, Jackie. Save it for the judge. I am.

Have you ever been accused of a crime? :unsure:

girlgeek, I was referring to DirecTV. I have heard that they have some crooks in their house. Strong arm tactics are not liked by anyone. Acacia is a perfect example of frivolous threats and lawsuits. :headwall:

Peaches, I don't think so. Have you? We are in the minority on this board!

You know its the end of the month and that Medicade provided medication has worn off!

I figure somebody must have double dosed last week only coming up for air once!

I think Id save it for da judge!!!

Hello Gonzo, I'm doing fine. :gbounce:

Hows the Kitties?

Are you referring to the two kitties I'm cat-sitting? They were found in the valley in the fire zone, and I'm taking care of them until their owners come forward. It looks like Asia Carrera is doing the same, only the kitties are hers.

http://www.asiacarrera.com/bulletin.html

you know the world is coming to the end when pornstars talk about their...kittens instead of their pussies
;-))

and NO, I do not imply that confucy is a pornstar!
;-)))

Asia has been an animal advocate for years. She regularly donates to the SPCA near her home and even has a plaque there with her name on it. Let's not start comparing ourselves to people who've had decades of activism simply because we decided to do something for a week.

This DirecTV thing is JUST LIKE Acacia.
They have a list of people and they're mailing them all and accusing them of infringement and saying "pay up or be sued". It doesn't matter that many of them aren't infringing the patent, doesn't even matter that many of them don't even have video on their site or don't have sites at all.
They are putting the burden of proof on the person receiving the letter and threatening lawsuits if they don't fork over money.

It's extortion.

Edit: "confusing" them of infringement? Someone hook my fingers up to my brain, please...



Last edited by Carrie at Oct 27 2003, 10:28 AM

Carrie, I have been working with local animal shelters for years. That is where I first met Asia. I would say I have about five years on her in time served saving animals. One of my best friends is known as the *cat lady* because she has over 30 cats at her ranch. She finds homes for stray cats.

And regarding Acacia, I have been actively involved with patent cases for years because I have worked with a patent/trademark attorney.

Save your tidbits for those who care! :rokk:

Now dont you want to play nice over here today?

gonzo, I was trying.

All of us in Southern Calif are consumed with the fire. I had friends staying with me over the weekend who almost lost their home. They have horses and lots of animals. We rescued their horses, one dog, one cat, one rabbit, and two chickens. They are staying with the *cat lady* until the fires stop. :okthumb:

Is there anyone here who believes anything confucy/Jackie/Kimberly says? I know I don't and I get a kick out of watching her try to be "friendly". I'm just curious if I'm in the minority. :blink:

I do, Peaches...
no wonder people say I started growing HALO on me!
;-))

http://cotac.com/Norway/Nansen-ship.JPG

Look at that! Serge posted a picture that didn't make the screen scroll!! Write this down!! ;)

Confucy - oh never mind. It's not worth it. :rolleyes:

Carrie, I enjoyed your comments regarding Acacia and the video companies mentioned here and on Luke's site. I told Luke to be nice to you because you were unemployed and going through some rough times. :inlove:

:headwall: :headwall: :headwall:

I, personally, feel that I have seen a definite attempt by confucy to play nice........

:okthumb:

Therefore, if you goad her and try to pull her into an attack mode, it is on you...not her.......

nuff said............

Then you're missing the double entendres and the slightly veiled insults, Sare. Honestly. Re-read this thread with the knowledge that Darci has filed a suit in small claims court against Confucy, and then look at the end of the statement right above yours.

Velvet-cloaked daggers are still daggers hon.

You should come over and join in those discussions, have some fun with us and maybe help us find a solution.
I haven't even read Luke's article and don't plan to.

Thank you, Carrie. I have great respect for your opinions, Sarettah, but I have to agree with Carrie on this one. Jackie never attempts to play nice, unless it serves her own agenda. Such attempts are insincere, at best.

She purposely chose this thread to come on, after not posting in a week, in an attempt to goad me into an argument. I have taken your advice from the other thread, and am refraining from a heated debate with her, because of the pending legal action.

She has attempted to play nice here before, and look at what has happened. She wrote me a letter the other day stating she knew nothing about me nor did she even know me, and then proceeded to flank me with compliments about my daughter. Why wasn't she thinking of this when she posted vulgar and untrue comments about me all over the web? I can't tell you the number of friends who have forwarded me the comments and IPs after removing her comments from their sites.

She is not playing nice here, she is bored and deflecting...again.

You know, if you just ignore her she MIGHT go away.

That's what I do.

I tried that, and it didn't work.

Understand that I have never said anything about her or had any contact with her before this board last week. Still, that did not stop her from viciously attacking me and my child, in any forum that would hear it.

Then you're missing the double entendres and the slightly veiled insults, Sare. Honestly. Re-read this thread with the knowledge that Darci has filed a suit in small claims court against Confucy, and then look at the end of the statement right above yours.

Velvet-cloaked daggers are still daggers hon.[/b][/quote]
She's a textbook case for passive agressive at its best. B)