DirecTV to sue indivdual users

[MTAtech]

The Fed. Com Act of 1996 gives the right to cable and satellite providers to sue CIVILY anyone that 'intercepts service without permission.' Statutory damages are $10,000 for cable and $50,000 for satellite. Cable companies have been doing this for years. What they first try to do is intimidate people into pre-litigation agreements. These are agreements where the individual agrees to pay the company money and turn over the equipment in exchange for not getting sued

Most people are unsophisticated and scared of authority. They often admit things to the company that they shouldn’t, let employees inspect their homes and turn over equipment when the company asks. My feeling is that cable companies are doing this as an extra money making venture. By accusing individuals of cable piracy they can often extort thousands of dollars from customers. They have a sophisticated operation. They send out mass mailings and have law firms that specialize in this field.

The fact is, that it is very difficult to for the sat. or cable company to prove that one actually intercepted programming. They can often prove that a consumer purchased equipment; but that, by itself, is not proof that they used it. A plausible defense is that one purchased the equipment to receive programming that they DO pay for. This is plausible because cable companies usually only rent cable boxes – not sell them. A cable box is required (in many regions) in order to view channels that are part of the basic service. Therefore, if one has a second TV, they must rent a box from the cable co. or purchase a 3rd party one. Additional defenses include any additional services one pays for – logically, if one is stealing service why would you pay for extra channels or periodically buy pay-per-view movies?

Nobody should steal service. However, my advice to anyone that feels that they are being falsely accused of stealing service is 1) deny any wrong doing; 2) do not provide the company with any information (it is their obligation to make their own case); do not corroborate anything they say (company investigators are trying to verify information so they can hurt you – don’t help); do not let them in your home, they have no right to demand to come in; cancel your service (don’t do business with people who call you a thief. It also starts the statute of limitation ticking – if they don’t sue in 3 years, they can’t); and consider legal advice.

A Lexus search of these cases against individuals shows that there isn’t much out there – indicating that most settle out-of-court. The remaining are basically default judgments, where the individual didn’t show up in court and the company’s side was the only presented side. Even in these cases, the courts usually didn't award statutory damages. Therefore, if they are getting most people to settle out-of-court, they aren’t going to bother with stubborn people willing to defend their case to the end.

[syber]

On April 10, 1997 I was in a one year agreement with Directv and had paid them for one year in advance for specified programming. April 10, 1997 Directv used there intellectual property right to alter my access card and took some of the programming I had paid for away. They held the programming hostage saying that they would return it if and when I agreed to pay them more. They refused any refund. I purchased another access card in hopes to block what 31 state attorney general's said was bait and switch. They broke the new access card using there intellectual property right. Directv then paid 11 million from the class action (Luaces V Directv) with 31 state attorney general's. Class members received about $14.00 for compensation from the bait and switch.
5 Years later Directv then sued the members of the 1997 class action. Directv sued in other courts saying that the 1997 class action members who bought new acccess cards in 1997 to stop the bait and switch took the programming saying nothing abiut the class action or the fact that they were the ones who took the programming. In 2003 Directv demanded thousands of dollars from the former class action members. It begs the question, why have a class action if the corporation can simply later turn around, say the consumer stole the programming which they origonally took, and take back from class members the money awarded from the class action as well as profit now in 2003 from the origonal bait and switch of 1997 with the help of the courts.

[cromwelt]

This is almost eerily similar to the RIAA suits...

[j.m@talk]

This is a case of "Don't help them to make a case against you"

If asked anything by sudo officialdom ......... "Claim a blonde moment"

This works for various other alledged offences too

[mireland]

This is a case of "Don't help them to make a case against you"

If asked anything by sudo officialdom ......... "Claim a blonde moment"

This works for various other alledged offences too

JM: not good with the law, but good at going around it!

[j.m@talk]

JM: not good with the law, but good at going around it!

[tinwindow]

In thought a question....
If Direct TV can send a signal to disrupt something electrical is it possible they could damage a vcr that was hooked up to it ?
I have two that have the same simptoms that were hooked up to it...
Anyone ?

[j.m@talk]

I recon your flogging a dead horse there....

[mireland]

I recon your flogging a dead horse there....

DirectTV=nazi bastages!

[ShadeZeRO]

Thats why i stick to dishnetwork, it doesn't run of cards.

[rivalry]

anyone who isnt stealing shouldnt have to worry anyway and dont have a need to fall for admitting to anything considering they didnt steal anything :P but ive been seeing lots of people who are stealing cable/satellite and i've actually had a lot of people nearby who have been complaining about people stealing their cable

[j.m@talk]

Thats why i stick to dishnetwork, it doesn't run of cards.

Yet

[JediOfDarkness]

I'm on Dish Network too, and I'm glad it doesn't run off cards as well... but then again, there is a slot for one in my reciever

[syber]

The problem is when the customer has paid for the programming and the satellite company takes the programming away by manipulating the embedded chip. Once a customer has paid and been granted permission for a period of one year then to take the programming away is nothing short of theft.That is what happened here. But then to turn around, after a class action is over for that theft and the company pays out 11 million to settle the customer theft they sue the customer using there intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights holders need to be exempt from the protections afforded them under intellectual property rights protections when they intentionally turn off the customers programming by way of embedded chip manipulation.


So many products today have embedded chips and the manufacturer can shut the chip off any timeby having pre-written it in the software of the chip. Then when the customer tries to stop the theft or blocks the attempt to have the product stop working, by working around the embedded chip they all of a suddon can get 5 years in jail under 17USC1201. HP recently wrote in there embedded chip instructions to say a cartridge is out of ink triggered on a certin date and it stops working. You never got the chance to use all of the ink inside. Then the consumer goes out and has to purchase another cartridge because to work around the premature shut down if a felony and companies can sue and do for more then 100,000.00. It is far too much power to first permit the turning off of your product then suing the customer for trying to keep there product working.

Blacks law distonary however says one cannot be sued for taking passive measures for defending property they have purchased and own. But here again, this means nothing to corporations because once they run you out of money in legal costs you can no longer defend yourself let alone have a trial.