syber's Techdirt Profile

syber

About syber

syber's Comments comment rss

  • Oct 14, 2009 @ 07:49am

    17 USC 1201, the right to steal?

    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

  • Oct 12, 2009 @ 08:15am

    Not an apples to apples comparison

    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/

  • Oct 10, 2009 @ 08:17am

    They should quit the RIAA

    The RIAA sues an account. Then they assume it was the account holder which downloaded. It could have been the person next door entering through a network or could have been a friend in the house. Yet, the court complaint names the person stating they have the evidence that person did this when, really, they do not know. I was a victim of fraud when Directv on April 10, 1997 decided to turn off the movie channels I paid for. They held those channels hostage trying to get me to pay more. 31 states attorney general's sued and Directv paid 11 million. 6 years later, directv sued me stating that the access card I bought in an attempt to stop that 1997 theft was illegal. In essence stating I had no such right to defend myself from a fraud. In the end, they had the litigation money and I didn't so I lost important civil rights to them. A corporation now owns my civil rights. Worse, there is no one sworn to up hold laws will defend the public facing this kind of litigation terrorism. This is my web site. We need to find a way to defend from false court claims designed to use the court to take the public's money. http://theft-by-satellite-company.com/index.html

  • Apr 03, 2009 @ 08:01am

    real sorry to have to ignore new Justice system

    These appointments were people who liked to sue people they knew were innocent. God forbid they now begin working for the justice system charging people they know are innocent. Before you know it, they will be hiring Directv attorney's. They have to be stopped suing and charging innocent people. When you are a juror, cast your vote against justice. When you are a witness, look the other way. It is the only way we can bring back a fair and responsible justice system who only sue and charge people where evidence exists.

  • Dec 30, 2008 @ 10:18am

    Bring Justice back

    Both Directv and the RIAA have sued many people now. Both Directv and the RIAA knew not all were guilty though and still accepted settlement money and a gag settlement. Where people were innocent, the US Department of Justice should have protected them from such a suit. People can access your home wireless network from on the street outside but you will pay the RIAA. People may buy legal and legitimate smart card programmers but Directv would sue and collect money none the less. So because justice permits such lawsuits and when they were innocent, that court complaint had to be untruthful and as such a fraud. Victims then became crime victims of the crime of fraud. The victim witness program ignored these crime victims in spite of the crime victims statute. For those who were innocent, they need to do just what justice has done. The next time they are a juror or a witness, ignore justice by jury nullification. Ignore justice by not being a state witness. This is the only thing which will send a strong enough message to put justice back to protecting the innocent from fraudulent lawsuits designed to collect money and silence the victims.

  • Dec 23, 2008 @ 07:46am

    Court assisted robbery

    The RIAA and Directv, each time they sue an innocent person had to lie to the court. Where the person was innocent, it can be nothing but a lie. While the Justice system knows they are lying in in many cases, The justice system does nothing to protect the public. Next time you are a juror or a witness, do what Justice has done and ignore Justice. Jury Nullification is a good start. Let's see what Justice thinks when they are ignored just like innocent victims are.

  • Dec 23, 2008 @ 07:42am

    lying before the court too

    The RIAA and Directv, each time they sue an innocent person had to lie to the court. Where the person was innocent, it can be nothing but a lie. While the Justice system knows they are lying in in many cases, The justice system does nothing to protect the public. Next time you are a juror or a witness, do what Justice has done and ignore Justice. Jury Nullification is a good start. Let's see what Justice thinks when they are ignored just like innocent victims are.

  • Dec 19, 2008 @ 05:54am

    Even though they will stop suing, there are thousands of illegal settlements which are binding on these people which have to be reversed because they take away constitutional rights..

  • Dec 17, 2008 @ 06:38am

    riaa and directv

    Directv and the RIAA have sued many they knew were innocent. Where people were innocent, the suits were a fraud. Law enforcement should have stepped in to stop innocent people from being sued. Those innocent people need to do what Justice did. Law enforcement ignored justice in these suits. People need to ignore justice the next time they are a juror or a witness. Jury nullification will ignore Justice the next time.

  • Dec 17, 2008 @ 06:36am

    riaa and directv

    Directv and the RIAA have sued many they knew were innocent. Where people were innocent, the suits were a fraud. Law enforcement should have stepped in to stop innocent people from being sued. Those innocent people need to do what Justice did. Law enforcement ignored justice in these suits. People need to ignore justice the next time they are a juror or a witness. Jury nullification will ignore Justice the next time.

  • Nov 07, 2008 @ 04:45am

    suing is expensive

    Directv did me wrong so I sued. But with most companies, the average person doesn't have near enough money to sue them. What happens is the company runs you into bankrupsy and you end up signing a settlement saying you will never sue them again. Because of money, court is not a level playing field.

  • Nov 07, 2008 @ 04:45am

    suing is expensive

    Directv did me wrong so I sued. But with most companies, the average person doesn't have near enough money to sue them. What happens is the company runs you into bankrupsy and you end up signing a settlement saying you will never sue them again. Because of money, court is not a level playing field.

  • Oct 11, 2008 @ 09:12pm

    Justice was hurt by Directv

    Directv filed a suit against me and they know they lied. I did noting wrong but they wanted my money. I complained to justice because I was a victim of Directv's crime. Justice ignored me and would not take the report. Directv drove my litigation costs so high I had to settle. In the end they took my rights from me as a crime victim.
    Because justice ignored me and permitted the crime, I will vote against justice the next time I am a juror or asked to be a witness for the state. Justice has to learn that justice is there for everyone and not for just those they choose to serve.

  • Jul 08, 2008 @ 05:15pm

    Directv

    It is real simple. You can think all is OK with Directv until one day the programming you paid them for is shut off. Or you call them, cancel service and they later say you never canceled service. The problems they can create for you is unlimited. You cannot win against a 6 billion dollar company in any court. They are litigious. Read Luaces V. Directv 1997, Miami where they took the programming April 10, 1997 people paid for in advance from them. 31 state attorney generals sued in a class action and won 11 million. If that was not bad enough, directv then sued the consumers involved in that 1997 class action for having bought an access card to stop that theft of programming in 1997., Let me run that by one more time...

    They took consumers paid for programming and then sued by 31 state attorney generals for that theft. Then directv turned around and sued the same victims of that theft stating they had to right to block the theft. First time I ever heard someone cannot block a theft of there own property. Understand when Directv takes the paid in advance for programming, the public is not supposed to stand in there way. This is also the case of the victim of a theft being sued by the perpetrator. The victim of the theft is then silenced in confidential agreement written by directv.

    This does not boad well for crime victims. It opens the door for any victim of a crime to be sued by the perpetrator and then the victim silenced or gagged from being a complainant or asking that someone be charged. The perpetrator goes free from prosecution. Directv is in the position that the government will not go up against them because of there money and power even when the person they sue was a crime victim of Directv.

  • Apr 07, 2008 @ 06:20pm

    RIAA shakedown

    I was sued in a fraudulent lawsuit by Directv. They lied in the suit naming people I never heard of in order to sue in the first place. Not being able to defend I asked the government for help. I submitted plenty of evidence to show the suit was a sham, that they had lied to get the suit filed, that I did not do what they claimed I did.
    Government, even though this was a felony, stood by and did nothing. Worse, in the end, certain constitutional rights all American's have were taken in confidential agreement.

    Government has permitted this crime by doing nothing to enforce criminal laws violated by employees. The bigger problem here is when people now view there own government as one willing to enforce laws when it suits large corporations. Government can no longer ask anything of me until they investigate the crime committed against me.

  • Nov 12, 2007 @ 05:32pm

    Directv sued me and government did nothing

    Directv sued me and broke criminal laws I believe in doing this. Directv had stolen my programming. The government how ever stood by and did nothing. Where government sleeps with the bad guy, the public has to be counter to a government which buys into corruption. The next time I serve on a jury, government will take the place which they did when I was the crime victim of this law suit. If government is to be anti-public and not protect, then people has to be pro-government and give them the same treatment. The ramifications are far reaching when government subordinates itself to that of corrupt corporations. People have to change the way they think of government and oppose them.

  • Oct 13, 2007 @ 05:48am

    Sirectv stole the programming

    On April 10, 1997 Directv stole my programming. They were sued by 31 attorney General's and paid a fine of 11 million. Directv then sued me in 2003 for having bought an access card which stopped that 1997 theft of my programming. They claim that I had no right to but an access card to stop there theft. Forced into confidental agreement, people need to be free to report crimes commited against them.

    I think it is pretty bad where in a free country a corporation can prevent people from protecting the property they bought and own. Worse, I found our government also agree people cannot buy an access card to stop directv from theft of consumer programming.

  • Nov 18, 2006 @ 07:31pm

    Directv did this, so will the RIAA

    In the 150,000 people directv collected from, Directv collected settlement money from most of those selling devices. Even though there is no law making smart card programmers illegal, Directv made out of court settlements with those selling the legal products. After collecting from the Sellers, they double dipped and collected again from the purchasers. As with any lawsuit for profit business, the real profit comes when you can collect from both the distributor and the purchaser of legal devices like an ISO7816 programmer. By the way, many people today working for Microsoft still buy this programmer that many had to pay Directv to settle. Even the US Army uses the legal product so many people were sued for. Care to decide what you want to purchase next?

  • Oct 23, 2006 @ 06:39pm

    Constitutional rights affected

    I was sued by Directv in 2003 for an access card I purchased before the DMCA in 1997. I bought the access card after having the programming I bought and paid for illegally taken away by Directv on April 10,1997. 31 state attorney generals sued Directv for having taken the programming in an attempt to get consumers to pay more while in a one year locked contract. Directv paid 11 million to consumers.
    In 2003 Directv sued me as a class member for the access card I purchased to block there theft in 1997. In my state under the states constitution I have the right to protect against theft by taking passive means to stop a crime. The suit said I didn't pay them when in fact I held receipts. The suit actually pitted there right to take my programming illegally against my right to stop such a theft of my programming. The 2003 said nothing of the theft in 1997 of my programming or that I bought the access card to block the theft. It said nothing that the issue had been settled in another court and that they had paid 11 million to consumer's collectively of which I received a small amount.
    In the end I could not stand up against them alone as I just didn't have the money. But what was at stake in my case was the right of the individual to take an action to stop the crime of theft on April 10, 1997. When I had to settle, the people of the US lost a little more of there freedom. This one the right to purchase an access card to stop a theft. Our government as well supported the rights of Directv to sue me placing there rights above the state constitution in light of them having taken programming illegally. Essentially, I was sued for stealing my own property. Property I had bought and paid for. The right of the people to be secure in there home and effects? The right to protect your property? When the government will not defend, the people are on there own.

  • Aug 08, 2006 @ 04:39am

    Fraudulant suit

    The suits target innocent people for profit. An IP address doesn't identify the person who did a download. The suit states that the named individual did in fact do such a download and no such evidence exists. It is an intentional false statement made under perjury in the filing document to a court each time they file a suit. Innocent people need to stand up and get these attorneys behind bars for intentionally lying to a court about someone just to get the court to award them some profit. RIAA is profiting from fraudulant lawsuits.