Press Picking Up On DirecTV's Guilty Until Proven Innocent Claims
from the some-of-them,-at-least... dept
For all the press attention the RIAA has received for suing their customers, the DirecTV story has been mostly ignored. A few publications have picked up on it, but, for the most part it's been pretty quiet. We last mentioned it a month ago, when someone from DirecTV tried to suggest that if DirecTV suspected you of something then the burden of proof was on you to prove your innocence. Now, however, it appears that a few more people are picking up on the story - though, they're not always getting it right. The Chicago Tribune (registration required, unfortunately) has a pretty balanced piece that includes the story of people who bought smart card readers for completely legitimate purposes (including one who was designing computers for medical research), but are still being sued because, as far as DirecTV is concerned, there's no reason to buy a smartcard reader, except to try to access their signal. The article also reports that many people who settled already are receiving the legal threat (pay DirecTV $3,500 or they'll sue) a second time. As the article points out, it appears they're filing lawsuits by computer - just spitting them out without bothering to actually see if there's any real evidence that the law has been broken. It also mentions (and this is the first I've seen of this), that some of the cases have been thrown out of court, as judges have pointed out that DirecTV has no proof. Now, the question is whether or not those who are falsely accused can sue DirecTV back for suing them without any proof. Meanwhile, DirecTV stands by their typical line that they're doing this to stop "theft" and (just like the recording industry) insisting it's the same thing as stealing a car. That, of course, isn't addressing the real issue, which is how can they sue someone simply for buying a product that has completely legitimate uses that have nothing to do with DirecTV? Their only response so far has been to deny it's possible to use a smart card reader for any purpose other than to access DirecTV's signals - which is simply untrue. Meanwhile, not all the articles on this topic are so well done. An article in Cincinnati discusses the same topic, but doesn't even explain smartcard readers, and simply calls them "piracy equipment."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
preserve your privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Mike, wrong again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry Mike, wrong again!
Second, the point is that accessing the signal illegally is against the law and I don't condone it in any sense (nor do I, as you continue to assume, download MP3s illegally). However, accessing a signal illegally and stealing a physical product are different things. In one case, something is missing and no one else can use it. In the other, that's not true. It's a pretty big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry Mike, wrong again!
Sorry, I think I'd still like some real proof of illegal usage of the device in each case. An argument of 'their heart must surely be in the right place, because they're a corporation' just isn't compelling enough to establish liability. Even in criminal law, you still need to find some drug residue on the crack pipe before you can find someone guilty of possession of drug paraphenalia. Even with a civil standard, I don't see the necessary preponderance of evidence here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry Mike, wrong again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...beware the coroporate jabberwocky
The RIAA et. al should be very careful that tort reform doesn't require that the legal industral complex raise the bar for civil suits. I've never really understood why there's a double standard, other than to employ lawyers.
If companies really had a clue, they would realized that all this money that they're spending fighting these battles would be better spent on increasing their market share. Unfortunatly, corporate lawyers just turn these issues into cost centers and then sick their newly hired, hungry minions upon the unsuspecting masses in a break-even effort to "educate" the public. Until the legal system adjusts (which it probably won't), nobody is really safe.
If someone were really smart and were willing to spend the money, that might have to pay to the RIAA/Direct TV/whomever, they should probably consider filing a "maintaining an attractive nusience" counter suite... after all, we're talking about civil court here; all you need is "preponderance of evidence" for the burden of persuasion... basically it all boils down to he-said, she-said, with the side able to "say" more convnincingly winning. Corporate lawyers will be able to "say" much better, but there's always the off chance that they're employing a recent graduate, counting on a settlement and completely not expecting the informed juror factor. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I expect that Judges love to dispose of civil cases that jam up their courtrooms based upon civil presidence. We (the people) just need a few victories in each state to secure the high-ground... and that's where organizations like the EFF come in; too bad they don't have the necessary budget/mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Direct TV - The Extortion Professionals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DirecTV are %@#&@% @$$ &*((#$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice was hurt by Directv
Because justice ignored me and permitted the crime, I will vote against justice the next time I am a juror or asked to be a witness for the state. Justice has to learn that justice is there for everyone and not for just those they choose to serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]