DirecTV Explains How Guilty Until Proven Innocent Makes Sense
from the not-quite-sure-about-that... dept
For quite some time now DirecTV has been sending threatening letters to anyone who bought a smart card programmer, telling them to pay $3,500 or face a court battle. DirecTV doesn’t care that there are legal uses for such devices. They simply presume that if you bought such a device, you must want to use it for pirating DirecTV signals, and therefore you need to pay up. Wired Magazine is now asking DirecTV why they believe “guilty until proven innocent” makes sense in these cases. DirecTV’s “enforcement chief” says that the burden of proof actually shifts to the user, if the device can be used for illegal purposes. I’ve certainly never heard that, and I’d like to see what the lawyers have to say on that. If this is true, and I don’t believe it is, it would mean that the entertainment industry suddenly has a much stronger case against file sharers. Also, while the interview never really delves into much detail, credit has to be given for interviewer Lucas Graves starting off the interview by asking: “Those $3,500 settlement checks must be generating a nice little revenue stream. Has it put a dent in DirecTV’s losses due to piracy?” You can almost see the smirk on his face.