Has anyone received a letter from Directv?

[stomie]

INTIMIDATION LETTER BELOW

MAY BE RECEIVED BY MANY OTHERS FROM YARMUTH WILSDON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Sept XX, 2003

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

This law firm represents DIRECTV, Inc. in the investigation of and litigation regarding the illegal reception and use of its satellite television programming. This illegal reception and use of DIRECTV's programming is accomplished through the use of modified, DIRECTV Access Cards and other devices sometimes referred to as "test cards."

DIRECTV recently obtained evidence demonstrating that you purchased illegal signal theft equipment to gain unauthorized access to DIRECTV's programming. At DIRECTV's request, I am contacting you because your purchase and use of illegal signal theft equipment to access DIRECTV's programming violates federal and state laws.

Federal and state statutes impose serious criminal and civil penalties against users of illegal signal theft equipment. See 47 V.S.C. ? 605(a) (making it illegal to receive or assist another in receiving an encrypted satellite signal); 18 U.S.C. ?2511(a) (making it illegal to intercept an
ng an evic.-ypl@-ld -satellite signal),,, 1.8 U.,.C@'. '@,25 i 1 (1),
encrypted satellite signal); 17 U.S.C. ? 1201 (a)(1) (making it illegal to circumvent a technological measure such as the DIRECTV conditional access system). So strict are these statutes that Congress has made the mere possession of signal theft equipment an offense under federal law.

See 18 U.S.C. ? 2512(l)(b) (making it illegal to "possess" any electronic, mechanical or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of an encrypted satellite signal).

Your purchase, possession and use of signal theft equipment gain unauthorized access to DIRECTV's satellite television programming subjects you to statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation. Moreover, your involvement in modifying devices to illegally gain access to DIRECTV's programming increases potential statutory damages to $100,000. Further, these statutes allow DIRECTV to recover from you compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees


[Scullion/NorthSat Customer]
Sept 6, 2003
Page 2

and other expenses. See 47 U.S.C. ? 605(e)(3)(B); 18 U.S.C. ? 2520(b). Thus, possessors of illegal signal theft equipment face substantial monetary penalties for their conduct.

DIRECTV is making an effort to rectify past misappropriations of its satellite programming by users of signal theft equipment and to prevent the use of illegal access cards in the future. With those goals in mind and in light of DIRECTV's signal theft claims against you, DIRECTV has
instructed me to take a proactive approach in resolving this matter. With your cooperation, we can reach an acceptable resolution to this problem. DIRECTV is prepared to release all claims against you in return for your agreement to (1) surrender all illegally modified access cards, or other
satellite signal theft equipment in your possession, custody, or control; (2) execute a written statement to the effect that you will not use illegal devices to obtain satellite programming in the future; and (3) make monetary restitution to DIRECTV for your past wrongful conduct and the
damages thereby incurred by the company. If you should chose to reject this settlement offer, DIRECTV will be forced to file a lawsuit in Federal District Court, seeking substantial monetary damages and injunctive relief.

While DIRECTV will allow me to discuss this matter with you, the company will not imprudently and indefinitely wait for you to acknowledge your unlawful conduct. Therefore, if you wish to discuss the contents of this letter, you must contact me at 206-654-4123 on or before 5:00 p.m., P.S.T., [two weeks from the date of this letter]. After that date, DIRECTV will abandon its attempts to negotiate and/or amicably resolve this matter. In any event, as a result of turning
this file over to me, DIRECTV representatives are no longer able to handle questions regarding your illegal access to DIRECTV satellite programming. Please direct any and all future inquiries to this office.

There is little question that you will benefit by resolving this matter through informal discussion in lieu of judicial action. Illegal access to DIRECTV programming is a serious problem and, consequently, DIRECTV has no choice but to fully pursue illegal residential access cases
to the end. If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter, or any other matter, please call me as soon as possible.


Sincerely,

Spencer Freeman

 

[bubbas1]

The only reason you would get one of the letters is if you bought a card reader or you purchased programs for your card and the place you purchased them from got busted and DTV has their customer list.

If it is because of a card reader then you have little to worry about because there are many uses for it that are not illegal. Heres an example..Owning spray paint is legal but if your dumb enough to huff it its illegal.

If its because of a program I would go see a lawyer.

DTV will ask you to settle for 2500-3500.

My brother got one because of a card reader. He is a computer geek so he was using it for work. He called the # on the letter to explain it to them but they told him that they were just a clearing house for DTV and that he should pay up. He went to a lawyer and had him send DTV a letter stating that if they took him to court that they could expect a countersuit after they lost. That was over a year ago and he hasnt heard anything since.

 

[cisco]

Click the link at the bottom of this article


Nice New web page..

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 9,000 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."

The Website address is: http://www.directvdefense.org/
August 12 2003

 

[cisco]

Class Action Lawsuit vs Directv

http://www.lawyers.com/lakeshorelaw/directv.jsp

 

[cisco]

A little bit of good news:



In DirecTV, Inc. v. Treworgy, Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division, Case No.: 2:03-cv-00428 (the Middle District DOES scan docs so you can get it on PACER), the District Court, on August 8, 2003, GRANTED Defendant Treworgy's Motion to Dismiss 18 USC 2512(1)(b) (the "mere" possession claim).

The importance of this particular decision is that a Court finally acknowledged that there is no civil cause of action for violation of 18 USC 2512(1)(b) by its own terms or under 18 USC 2520(a). In other words, there is no "possession" claim period. DirecTV was not given leave to amend its Complaint as you can see from parts of the Order quoted below.

While there are other unpublished orders from other District Courts to the contrary, Defendant Treworgy's position was that these Courts were improperly reading sections 2512(1)(b) and 2520(a). The Court agreed and this is good news for End Users who have been sued. While a Motion to Dismiss does NOT end the case, it is a very important win strategically for any End User because it limits the theories under which DirecTV can prevail, if at all.

Important parts of that Order are listed below:


"It is clear that, standing alone, this criminal statute (18 USC 2512), provides no private civil cause of action under the factors set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975)[.]" (emphasis added)(citations omitted)."

"Congress has provided a civil cause of action, however, for some violations of Chapter 119 of Title 18. [.] Plaintiff argues that the conduct charged in Count III is made a civil cause of action by section 2520(a). The Court disagrees.

* * *

As stated above, section 2512(1)(b) makes it an offense to manufacture, assemble, possess or sell the pirating device. Paragraph 35 of the Count III tracks the statutory language of section 2512(1)(b), as it relates to Treworgy, and charges that Treworgy possessed a pirating device. Section 2520(a), on the other hand, provides that DirecTV has a civil cause of action against an individual or entity which intercepts, discloses, or intentionally uses its electronic communications in violation of Chapter 119. Section 2512(1)(b) does not require the interception, dsiclosure or use of the devices, and therefore section 2512(1)(b) is not within the scope of section 2520(a). This Court agrees with Cardona on this point, despite existing non-binding authority to the contrary. While Plaintiff does allege that Treworgy used its electronic communications, this allegations is surplusage to the section 2512(1)(b) claim, which does not include usage as an element. U.S. v. Biro, 143 F.3d 1421, 1428 (11th Cir. 1998)("The statute makes no reference to the customer's intended use of the product."); U.S. v. Schweihs, 569 F.2d 965, 969 (5th Cir. 1978)(footnote omitted)("Section 2512(1)(b), however, does not prohibit the surreptitious use of an electronic device."). The Court concludes that section 2520(a) does not afford a private right of action for violations of section 2512(1)(b).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #16) is GRANTED, and Count III is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall withhold entry of judgment until the conclusion of the case."

As you now realize from the Karpinsky reversal, DirecTV can try to appeal this Order. Defendant Treworgy is prepared to defend any appeal that is filed.