where's teh legal advice?

[VDragulaV]

What is the name of your state? Indiana
So far I have not seen any actual LEGAL advice from real people who know how to do with this. I tried going to find a lawyer but its impossible to find which category this fits in. I am seeing where DTV wants $4,000 and $1,000 and as low as $500! Well they will have to lock me up before I pay them $1,000 for something I purchased without knowing it was illegal to own it! With all state of the world today its a shame that someone who "SUPPOSEDLY" stole a signal from teh air waves gets in more trouble than a guy who steals a car! First off I don't have that kind of money to pay them for buying some little box. Second. how the heck can they use info obtained from a seizure in Canada to come after me in the US? I haet to call these people cause first thing I did think is well they really don't have eny proof I did anything but buy a box and that in no way harms them if said box was not used to steal their service as far as they can PROVE. So therefore if owning this device is illegal and thats all I am guilty of when did DIRECTV become the police officer to enforce this law? Shouldn't a cop be knocking on my door saying hey you are commiting a crime and then he better darn well be able to find this illegal device in my possesion. How many drug dealers do you know that were convicted of possession cause a cop said well we KNOW they bought the stuff but we didn't find any drugs on him!! Hmmm I'm betting NONE! For that matter who says I actually bought this thing. Maybe someone got ahold of my credit card number and purchased this thing knowing I am never home cause I work out of town for weeks at a time and just took it from my mailbox when it arrrived and I didn't catch that one purchase on my bill. My stupityu should cost me $1000 - $4000 in addition to teh cost of teh product. fact is they can't "prove" that didn't happen and I am totally oblivious to any of it until I get a letter that says "You purchased illegal equipment now pay us money" sounds like extortion to me!?!? If there are any real lawyers out there that can help with this I'm sure we'd ALL like to hear the opinion cause on top of it retaining a lawyer could cost as much as just paying them!

 

[divgradcurl]

" purchased without knowing it was illegal to own it!"

You mean the ads saying "get scrambled video for free" didn't clue you in?

"all state of the world today its a shame that someone who "SUPPOSEDLY" stole a signal from teh air waves gets in more trouble than a guy who steals a car!"

Stealing is stealing.

"they really don't have eny proof I did anything but buy a box and that in no way harms them if said box was not used to steal their service as far as they can PROVE."

Well, since the crime is owning the box, the fact that they can't prove you stole any service is really irrelevant, isn't it?

"when did DIRECTV become the police officer to enforce this law?"

They're not the police, of course. They are simply offering a deal -- you pay them a fee, and they'll leave you alone.

"You purchased illegal equipment now pay us money" sounds like extortion to me!?!?

Its not extortion -- they are offering you a contract. Basically, they are giving YOU something of value -- giving up the right to haul your ass into court -- for "good consideration," the $1000 or whatever.

"retaining a lawyer could cost as much as just paying them"

Exactly. And even if you did retain a lawyer, you'd almost certainly lose in court anyway, in which case you would owe both Direct TV AND the lawyer.

Look, you're stuck here. You can either pay 'em, or try and duke it out in court.

 

[VDragulaV]

well I don't know who you are maybe a dtv employee but first off they can't prove I own the box. and I won't go into how I know they can't prove that cause well I have already talked to a lawyer and well guess what? I'm not gonna have to pay them anything. In fact I don't even have to pay the lawyer. So I guess thats the end of this discussion. by the way thanks for the "expert legal advice" you gave. It was so very informative.

 

[hexeliebe]

This has to make IAAL's top 10 most ignorant posts of the year...

I'll nominate it.

 

[VDragulaV]

ok every thing I mentioned in my post has already been used against DTV in court and people are winning. This can all be found on the web somewhere. I found it therre but I think the biggie that gets my goat most is balking at me about this being extortion so here it is for all you people that want to ridicule me. I didn't make this up this is actual california law:




1. The Demand Letters violated California Penal Code provisions dealing with extortion. The conduct of defendants as set forth above was an unlawful business act or practice because defendant’s letters violated California extortion laws. Penal Code section 518 provides that “Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.” Penal Code section 519 specifies the “wrongful use of fear” is found when the threat is to: (2). To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or, (3). To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or, (4). To expose any secret affecting him or them.”

The Demand letters arguably meet all three of these options. The Letters repeatedly state that “signal theft” is illegal and cite 47 U.S.C. section 605 and 18 U.S.C. section 2512 . Both statutes make it clear signal theft is a crime, the latter provision specifying penalties up to five years in prison.[1] Thus, the threat is to accuse the recipient of a crime. Moreover, "accusing of a crime" and "imputing a crime," are two distinct types of threats. So even if the letters do not directly “accuse” the recipient of a crime, they clearly do threaten to “expose or impute” a disgrace or crime. Finally, the Letters also threaten to expose a “secret,” which in this context means some fact unknown to general public or some particular part thereof, which affects the threatened person in way unfavorable to reputation or to some other interest. (People v. Lavine (1931) 115 Cal.App. 289 , 295.) The “fact” the recipient is a “signal thief” would be such a secret.

California criminal law also prohibits the attempt to commit extortion. Penal Code section 523 prohibits sending threatening letters with intent to extort money.

SENDING THREATENING LETTERS WITH INTENT TO EXTORT MONEY, ETC. Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519, is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.



It is not necessary to a conviction for violating this section that the threat should have been apparent from face of letter or even that it should have been implicit therefrom; the writing being sufficient if the language used was adapted to imply threat. (People v. Fox (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 426 , 430. So even the letters which did not induce a payment violated California law.