April 1, 1997 directv reached into my set top box, into the chip and turned off the programming I bought and paid for. Attorney's general from 31 states sued then stating Fraud in the complaint. Directv paid 11 million for having used there intellectual property rights to turn off the paid for programming. Under our constitution consumers have the right to protect and defend the property they purchase. Does usc 17 1201 really extend the right of the copyright holder to alter the embedded chip to steal? The answer is yes. In fact I was sued in 2003 because I bought an access card to stop this same theft. So 17 usc 1201 gives the right to the copyright holder to use there right to commit theft and fraud on the products we buy every day? It is discussed here : http://theft-by-satellite-company.com/index.html
ignoring an RIAA lawsuit may be "cheaper" than going to trial.
It is more the story ignore or pay them. This because going to trial is not an option for most. Litigation costs will reach $10,000 before you can begin trial preparation. The trial will cost another $25000.00 or more. These suits are so successful because the RIAA or Directv drives litigation costs up early on so that you will be out of money long before you could ever consider a trial. In the end, many innocent people have paid the RIAA and Directv. Both Directv and the RIAA know that by driving up costs early on, they will be able to collect from innocent people and have done so. In the end though, where a court up holds the practice of claims against innocent people the court itself looses all credibility. How many millionaire's you see being sued by the RIAA or Directv? The RIAA or Directv suing a millionaire would be a loosing proposition. They can only profit from hitting the innocent person who is also the little guy.
Here is my site where this unfolded: http://www.digitalrightownertheft.com/
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by syber.
17 USC 1201, the right to steal?
http://theft-by-satellite-company.com/index.html
Not an apples to apples comparison
It is more the story ignore or pay them. This because going to trial is not an option for most. Litigation costs will reach $10,000 before you can begin trial preparation. The trial will cost another $25000.00 or more. These suits are so successful because the RIAA or Directv drives litigation costs up early on so that you will be out of money long before you could ever consider a trial. In the end, many innocent people have paid the RIAA and Directv. Both Directv and the RIAA know that by driving up costs early on, they will be able to collect from innocent people and have done so. In the end though, where a court up holds the practice of claims against innocent people the court itself looses all credibility. How many millionaire's you see being sued by the RIAA or Directv? The RIAA or Directv suing a millionaire would be a loosing proposition. They can only profit from hitting the innocent person who is also the little guy.
Here is my site where this unfolded:
http://www.digitalrightownertheft.com/
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by syber.
Submit a story now.