R
resipsa
Guest
What is the name of your state? CA
This is interesting. A friend of mine recently received a letter from DirectV demaning restitution to the tune of $3,500 for interception of satellite signals from DirectV. We all thought it was smart scam. However, it is very real.
DTV was alerted to this person through his online credit card purchase of an H-card. Based on this information, DTV is alleging that my friend is stealing cable since he possesses an H-card and this is the main purpose of H-cards. (It is not however)
My friends' opinions:
DTV has no way to prove intent other than impliedly through the statute. We figured the way they would do this is by others that have responded to this letter (this circulation was so huge that there is a dedicated forum discussing only this SM)...to pay restitution or whatever and sign an agreement. This agreement probably says that the new purpose of the H-cards is for stealing signals...whereby establishing "main purpose" and "intent."
Recipients of the letter would probably pay rather than retain costly IP counsel...so DTV will now obtain evidence that it initially did not have.
As always I look forward to responses for Racer72 and IAAL...
Thanks
http://www.geocities.com/rriill2002/directv1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/rriill2002/directv2.jpg
This is interesting. A friend of mine recently received a letter from DirectV demaning restitution to the tune of $3,500 for interception of satellite signals from DirectV. We all thought it was smart scam. However, it is very real.
DTV was alerted to this person through his online credit card purchase of an H-card. Based on this information, DTV is alleging that my friend is stealing cable since he possesses an H-card and this is the main purpose of H-cards. (It is not however)
My friends' opinions:
DTV has no way to prove intent other than impliedly through the statute. We figured the way they would do this is by others that have responded to this letter (this circulation was so huge that there is a dedicated forum discussing only this SM)...to pay restitution or whatever and sign an agreement. This agreement probably says that the new purpose of the H-cards is for stealing signals...whereby establishing "main purpose" and "intent."
Recipients of the letter would probably pay rather than retain costly IP counsel...so DTV will now obtain evidence that it initially did not have.
As always I look forward to responses for Racer72 and IAAL...
Thanks
http://www.geocities.com/rriill2002/directv1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/rriill2002/directv2.jpg
Last edited: