DirecTV receiver with Series 2 Tivo $49.95 + ship ($30)

[labgeek]

The problem lies primarily with the DMCA not with DTV. It's a very flawed law. The way it reads is if a device is used primarily for breaking copyright protection then it's illegal. Devices have more than 1 use. DTV has been fought successfully on more than 1 occassion about this. I personally know someone who received one of these letters. He does security work, including a sherriff's office client. He had bought it for legitimate reasons. A simple letter back to DTV stating why he bought it, and they dropped then entire thing right then and there. No court costs, no lawyers, no fines, nothing. DTV has an obligation to it's shareholders to protect it's assets. One of those assets is it's satellite signals. The DMCA gives them legal means to do so, albeit flawed. There not using these means would be corporate mismanagement. Want to go after someone or something, go after the DMCA. It's garbage the way it is now.

 

[superblast]

Well, if you're watching a feature film on TBS then compression is the least of your worries! Pan and scan, ungodly amounts of commercials, speeding up the film slightly so they can squeeze in even more commercials, lousy sound (compared to a proper 5.1 surround setup), and station logos are just some of the reasons why you don't want to watch a feature film on a superstation.

Hey, I just finished watching "The Patriot" on DTV and I gotta say the quality just ain't awesome. Way too much compression, at least on the TBS channel. Sometimes it looks like a bad divx encode. Smoke and fog that has physical borders at the intensities increase and decrease. God forbid there is a bright light shining thru the fog. If there is strong focus on a face the background looks like a Monet painting, very impressionistic but unfilm like.What a waste on my epc but it is my best option unfortunately. And I have tried it on different tv's. It's a DTV problem. I wonder if they ruin their HDTV offerings as well? That'll be my next box.

 

[Richardito]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
I was just reading a article in RS this morning and it hit me. The government has been raiding headshops and taking the bongs. Now imagine this, the government takes the credit card receits from bong sales and sends you a letter saying they know you smoked dope with it and they are gonna sue you for $10k BUT.. they can make it all go away for $3500. Thats basically what direct TV is doing at the moment.

The government can only bring suit in criminal court, where they can get blood (death sentence or years in jail). Only another individual can get you to civil court (for money). In the same way individuals cannot take someone else to criminal court. Remember the OJ trials?

 

[Antisocial Virge]

Originally posted by: Richardito

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
I was just reading a article in RS this morning and it hit me. The government has been raiding headshops and taking the bongs. Now imagine this, the government takes the credit card receits from bong sales and sends you a letter saying they know you smoked dope with it and they are gonna sue you for $10k BUT.. they can make it all go away for $3500. Thats basically what direct TV is doing at the moment.

The government can only bring suit in criminal court, where they can get blood (death sentence or years in jail). Only another individual can get you to civil court (for money). In the same way individuals cannot take someone else to criminal court. Remember the OJ trials?

I think you took my example a little too literal. I mean that they are seeking compensation for something they have no proof of taking place. They have lost court cases allready on it. One said that the fact that a person owned the devices was not proof of a crime and could not sue for debt collection. Another case ended with the ruling that yes it was illegal but that did not give them a basis for dept collection.

 

[deeznuts]

Originally posted by: scottdog81

Originally posted by: tangent1138
BunLengthHotDog --

"The ill-informed scare me."

So anyone who disagrees with your point of view is labeled "ill-informed"? How convenient. Let's be honest: if you're ordering smart card programmers from the sites their targeting, it's 99% likely you're purchasing the device with intent to pirate satellite. You know it. I know it. Dogs know it. If you were doing legitimate smart card id programming you'd be getting your hardware from a very different cross section of hardware providers.

If you're unfairly targeted by DirecTV in civil litigation, then it's your right to fight back in court. It's odd to me that so many bitch and moan about "extortion" and DirecTV's "nazi" tactics, then they roll over and pay instead of going to court. If you're innocent, fight back! Otherwise shut up and take your medicine. You got caught. Boo hoo. Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming it was just for "testing". That's no better than the little grommets that share mp3's over Kazaa, then get mad at the RIAA for trying to curtail their "right" to steal because music is "too expensive". At least if I get caught doing something I shouldn't, I take the punishment like a man instead of blustering about making excuses.



Oh and a couple more things:
1) I'm very well informed.
2) But should still be scared of me.

last time I checked it was innocent until proven guilty, and without proof, they have no right to sue you.

not takinig sides, but what you are quoting is the standard for criminal law, in civil court it's preponderance of the evidence, and assumptions can be made.

 

[MOONKEY]

It is actually scary. Ask yourself, if directTV sue you without any proof, what will you do? Spending $2000 -- $3000 laywer fee defending yourself, or pay $3500 settling the lawsuit? Very caculated amount, indeed.

Although, $49.95 is a good deal.

 

[540mb]

ahhh....so glad I still have cable.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: flot
First, I would strongly urge anyone NOT to subscribe to DirecTV, because of their recent extortion tactics of taking individuals to court because they "purchased devices which could be used to intercept their signal." This would be like the MPAA taking you to court because you bought a DVD burner, and the cases may set legal precident for just that sort of behavior in the future. However, if you are determined to subscribe to DirecTV, http://www.orbitsat.com currently has the philips DirecTivo series 2 receivers for $49 with a 1 year commitment. Ground shipping is about $30-35. According to the site, the deal ends on July 5. This will cost you $199 just about anywhere else. Not a referral, just a happy customer. (of Orbitsat, I have a few choice words about DTV)

this site is trying to "paste to my clipboard". :frown:

 

[Richardito]

Good deal, I got in on it.

 

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: flot
First, I would strongly urge anyone NOT to subscribe to DirecTV, because of their recent extortion tactics of taking individuals to court because they "purchased devices which could be used to intercept their signal." This would be like the MPAA taking you to court because you bought a DVD burner, and the cases may set legal precident for just that sort of behavior in the future. However, if you are determined to subscribe to DirecTV, http://www.orbitsat.com currently has the philips DirecTivo series 2 receivers for $49 with a 1 year commitment. Ground shipping is about $30-35. According to the site, the deal ends on July 5. This will cost you $199 just about anywhere else. Not a referral, just a happy customer. (of Orbitsat, I have a few choice words about DTV)

this site is trying to "paste to my clipboard". :frown:

yeah. their site is doing a couple of js tricks. preventing selection, right-click, copy...blah, blah, blah... kind of childish really.

do a view source. you'll see.

 

[flot]

Just to clarify, the site *is* legit. I received my DirecTivo about a week after I placed my order. My only complaint with the whole process is that they actually shipped my unit the day after I ordered - however my order status did not show up online as shipped until 4 days later. In fact, the day my order said "shipped" I came home and found it waiting at my door.

But otherwise, very happy with their service and definitely their price.

 

[whovous]

Originally posted by: Richardito

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge I was just reading a article in RS this morning and it hit me. The government has been raiding headshops and taking the bongs. Now imagine this, the government takes the credit card receits from bong sales and sends you a letter saying they know you smoked dope with it and they are gonna sue you for $10k BUT.. they can make it all go away for $3500. Thats basically what direct TV is doing at the moment.

The government can only bring suit in criminal court, where they can get blood (death sentence or years in jail). Only another individual can get you to civil court (for money). In the same way individuals cannot take someone else to criminal court. Remember the OJ trials?

I work for the Justice Department, and I take people to civil court all the time. But you <U>are</U> right about the second parf. Private individuals cannot take anyone to criminal court.

That said, I am grateful that my current employment will never require me to enforce the DMCA. Whatever happened to the idea that the airwaves belong to the people?

 

[masterc]

I thought this was the hot deals forum

 

[Slikkster]

re: and no court convicts on circumstantial evidence alone

Not to take a position on the matter before us here, but from what I know, courts very frequently convict on circumstantial evidence alone. Often times, that's all there is. And in a civil court, the burden of proof is much lower. It then becomes a "preponderance" of the evidence to levy a judgment, vs. reasonable doubt. That basically means a judge would find --on a scale of 100 -- that he puts at least 51% belief in a plaintiff's case to levy judgment against a defendant. Remember the OJ case...he was acquitted in criminal court but was/is forced to cough up millions in civil court. How could that be if he was acquitted of the murders? Because, in the judge's mind in civil court, he was at least 51% likely to have done the murderous deed.

re: I thought this was the hot deals forum

The deal has been posted. It now falls into the "discussion" realm. No one's forcing you to read all the posts. Just my opinion.

 

[ChiefBrody]

U.S. federal statutes make it illegal to possess equipment designed to intercept an encrypted satellite signal. That said. I don't see how that gives DTV the right to sue. While interception mediums are obviously related to DTV and EchoStar, and their financial bottom line. The possesion of the equipment would, as it seems to me, fall under a federal crime. DTV should be complaining to the FBI, not the consumer.

In addition, DTV could start gaining more respect by lowering their ridiculous prices, and improve their customer service. But instead, they spend countless legal fees on futile law suits.

I love the DTV and Tivo signals, and have never even investigated getting a hacked card. Of course their are 'one-off's and exceptions in any situation in life. But just from a common sense perspective, it's reasonable to assume that the majority of people who have the cards, use them for the sole purpose of getting free signals.

Again, that does not justify DTV's actions, IMO.

 

[iwearnosox]

Nevermind.

 

[deeznuts]

Originally posted by: Richardito
The government can only bring suit in criminal court, where they can get blood (death sentence or years in jail). Only another individual can get you to civil court (for money). In the same way individuals cannot take someone else to criminal court. Remember the OJ trials?

whoa whoa whoa. goverment takes individuals to civil court all the time. where did you get this info? are you an attorney?

attorney's get a bad rap in public, but we are trained to decipher legalese and it is imperative that we do not give incorrect information like Richardito just provided, or else you'd be in a world of trouble (both attorney and client). everybody hates lawyers, and likes to make fun of them ... until they need one. (sidenote - i also can't stand the incorrect usage of "hearsay" people get it so wrong it's funny).

 

[pprior]

Lawyers are definitely NOT a hot deal. The only reason we ever would need one is because of ANOTHER one. Thus said Shakespeare....

 

[rahvin]

For those that think you need justification to bring a civil case against an individual I would like to point out that you are an idiot. Anyone can bring a civil suit against anyone for any reason. I could bring a civil suit against everyone in this thread for burning my house down. To bring the suit I don't have prove anything. Court is where proof is made. And thank god it is because I wouldn't want some court clerk deciding if I can sue someone.

This is America where you are Innocent until proven guilty IN CRIMINAL COURT, and where anyone can sue you for anything for any reason IN CIVIL COURT.

 

[ChiefBrody]

Originally posted by: rahvin
For those that think you need justification to bring a civil case against an individual I would like to point out that you are an idiot. Anyone can bring a civil suit against anyone for any reason. I could bring a civil suit against everyone in this thread for burning my house down. To bring the suit I don't have prove anything. Court is where proof is made. And thank god it is because I wouldn't want some court clerk deciding if I can sue someone.

This is America where you are Innocent until proven guilty IN CRIMINAL COURT, and where anyone can sue you for anything for any reason IN CIVIL COURT.

Hardly idiots. Indeed, anyone could bring a suit for any reason, but without justification, the person would lose the case. Your example is equally as ridiculous as your attitude. Go ahead and sue me for burning your house down. When I am though with you for court costs, incidental costs, emotional distress, travel and my counter suit. Your suit will look like a child throwing gum at the Scorpian King.

You see, this discussion was actually going beyond the obvious, as you so adeptly pointed out, delving deeper into the case and looking at more than just a two brain cell thought.

And, you might want to go back and read the Constitution. People are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ChiefBrody

Originally posted by: rahvin
For those that think you need justification to bring a civil case against an individual I would like to point out that you are an idiot. Anyone can bring a civil suit against anyone for any reason. I could bring a civil suit against everyone in this thread for burning my house down. To bring the suit I don't have prove anything. Court is where proof is made. And thank god it is because I wouldn't want some court clerk deciding if I can sue someone.

This is America where you are Innocent until proven guilty IN CRIMINAL COURT, and where anyone can sue you for anything for any reason IN CIVIL COURT.

Hardly idiots. Indeed, anyone could bring a suit for any reason, but without justification, the person would lose the case. Your example is equally as ridiculous as your attitude. Go ahead and sue me for burning your house down. When I am though with you for court costs, incidental costs, emotional distress, travel and my counter suit. Your suit will look like a child throwing gum at the Scorpian King.

You see, this discussion was actually going beyond the obvious, as you so adeptly pointed out, delving deeper into the case and looking at more than just a two brain cell thought.

And, you might want to go back and read the Constitution. People are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court.

As has been said numerous times if DTV has no case against someone they sue they will lose just as I would lose my case. BTW if I sued you then you could not claim court costs because you wouldn't have paid them, but the suggestion of that is as inane as your suggestion that you would countersue and actually recieve damages. In addition your insertion of the word presumed to the statement has little bearing and was implied in my statement but you keep trying for a point don't you.

DTV has the right to send letters to anyone they feel like, they can make any claims they wish and they can sue anyone they want. I have no doubt that if you purchased a card programmer for a legitimate purpose and conveyed that purpose in a letter to DTV you would never hear from them again. The theives in this world think that DTV should have to prove that someone is liable before bringing a civil suit and yes that does make them idiots. Court is where you find out if someone is liable in civil matters.

 

[ChiefBrody]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: ChiefBrody

Originally posted by: rahvin
For those that think you need justification to bring a civil case against an individual I would like to point out that you are an idiot. Anyone can bring a civil suit against anyone for any reason. I could bring a civil suit against everyone in this thread for burning my house down. To bring the suit I don't have prove anything. Court is where proof is made. And thank god it is because I wouldn't want some court clerk deciding if I can sue someone.

This is America where you are Innocent until proven guilty IN CRIMINAL COURT, and where anyone can sue you for anything for any reason IN CIVIL COURT.

Hardly idiots. Indeed, anyone could bring a suit for any reason, but without justification, the person would lose the case. Your example is equally as ridiculous as your attitude. Go ahead and sue me for burning your house down. When I am though with you for court costs, incidental costs, emotional distress, travel and my counter suit. Your suit will look like a child throwing gum at the Scorpian King.

You see, this discussion was actually going beyond the obvious, as you so adeptly pointed out, delving deeper into the case and looking at more than just a two brain cell thought.

And, you might want to go back and read the Constitution. People are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court.

As has been said numerous times if DTV has no case against someone they sue they will lose just as I would lose my case. BTW if I sued you then you could not claim court costs because you wouldn't have paid them, but the suggestion of that is as inane as your suggestion that you would countersue and actually recieve damages. In addition your insertion of the word presumed to the statement has little bearing and was implied in my statement but you keep trying for a point don't you.

DTV has the right to send letters to anyone they feel like, they can make any claims they wish and they can sue anyone they want. I have no doubt that if you purchased a card programmer for a legitimate purpose and conveyed that purpose in a letter to DTV you would never hear from them again. The theives in this world think that DTV should have to prove that someone is liable before bringing a civil suit and yes that does make them idiots. Court is where you find out if someone is liable in civil matters.

You see, here is where you are arguing against your own argument. It would be easier for you to just take a punching bag and beat your self silly. First, you say people can sue for anything they want, then you say I could not counter sue for court costs. Which is it? Can or Can't? It really doesn't appear very smart for you to take both sides of the same issue. It makes things very confusing, which, is the state your argument has been in all along. To go one further, If I hired a lawyer to defend myself against your hypothetical ' burn your house down' scenario, of course I could sue for costs. By what possible logic would you consider that 'inane?'

I don't have to try for a point, I made a point. You sited a passage in the constitution as if you wrote it yourself, CAPS and all. Don't get mad at me if you screwed it up. Being innocent and presuming one's innocence is two completely different things. I don't know you. How am I supposed to know what you imply? Personally, however, I still think it was simply a lack of knowledge of the passage rather than an implication. Based on what I've read so far from you, it's more than just a guess.

The theives in this world think that DTV should have to prove that someone is liable before bringing a civil suit and yes that does make them idiots.

When people start speaking for an entire group in the entire world, that usually indicates that their argument is so weak, stupid or both, that they attempt to bring in a 'backup' force in mass proportions.

 

[rahvin]

You see, here is where you are arguing against your own argument. It would be easier for you to just take a punching bag and beat your self silly. First, you say people can sue for anything they want, then you say I could not counter sue for court costs. Which is it? Can or Can't? It really doesn't appear very smart for you to take both sides of the same issue.It makes things very confusing, which, is the state your argument has been in all along. To go one further, If I hired a lawyer to defend myself against your hypothetical ' burn your house down' scenario, of course I could sue for costs. By what possible logic would you consider that 'inane?'

So smack my ass and call me sally. Of course you could countersue for anything you wish, your chances of achieving victory would be as miniscule as mine. In all likelyhood the case would be dismissed in under a minute with no damages awarded. If the case was handled in small claims court you wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer anyway. Your certainty that you could win countersuit damages is the inane part and would depend entirely on the jurisdiction in question and the judge/jury presiding.

I don't have to try for a point, I made a point. You sited a passage in the constitution as if you wrote it yourself, CAPS and all. Don't get mad at me if you screwed it up. Being innocent and presuming one's innocence is two completely different things. I don't know you. How am I supposed to know what you imply? Personally, however, I still think it was simply a lack of knowledge of the passage rather than an implication. Based on what I've read so far from you, it's more than just a guess.

If I had quoted the constitution I would have put it in quotes now lets not go making assumptions about what I am and am not saying. The definition of presume is: "to expect or assume especially with confidence". Using this basis it is not incorrect of me to say that someone is innocent until convicted by a court of law. The court itself must presume innocence as stated in the constitution but the individual themselves are innocent under the law until convicted. But if you wish to continue arguing a completely worthless debate on the semantics of words go right ahead but I think I won't bother to respond because the point of your whole arguement is now based around an attack on the language used rather than the points made.

Why don't you spend some time actually arguing a legitimate point like trying to prove that it's illegal for DTV to sue someone for purchasing a device that DTV has good faith to believe the person is using to steal from them?

 

[djkball]

I was wondering if anyone who had purchased this would like to sell there old reciever please let me know . Looking for a 5/6 gen RCA reciever

 

[ChiefBrody]

Originally posted by: rahvin

You see, here is where you are arguing against your own argument. It would be easier for you to just take a punching bag and beat your self silly. First, you say people can sue for anything they want, then you say I could not counter sue for court costs. Which is it? Can or Can't? It really doesn't appear very smart for you to take both sides of the same issue.It makes things very confusing, which, is the state your argument has been in all along. To go one further, If I hired a lawyer to defend myself against your hypothetical ' burn your house down' scenario, of course I could sue for costs. By what possible logic would you consider that 'inane?'

So smack my ass and call me sally. Of course you could countersue for anything you wish, your chances of achieving victory would be as miniscule as mine. In all likelyhood the case would be dismissed in under a minute with no damages awarded. If the case was handled in small claims court you wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer anyway. Your certainty that you could win countersuit damages is the inane part and would depend entirely on the jurisdiction in question and the judge/jury presiding.

Well, you know what they say, you can put a dress and lipstick on a pig, and call her Monique, but she is still just a pig. What strikes me as so funny about your entire debate, is that your original premise was "one could sue for anything. Those who think they need justification are idiots." Not an exact quote, but close. Now your premise is winning vs. losing. Dude, you are all over the place. Now you say "you wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer anyway." What Country are referring to exactly??? First, based on your ridiculous 'burned house down' scenario, I doubt seriously it would go to small claims court, unless you were living in a shoe or a box. Second. Small claims, civil criminal, you name it, I can hire a laywer anytime I want. Where do you get your information from??

I don't have to try for a point, I made a point. You sited a passage in the constitution as if you wrote it yourself, CAPS and all. Don't get mad at me if you screwed it up. Being innocent and presuming one's innocence is two completely different things. I don't know you. How am I supposed to know what you imply? Personally, however, I still think it was simply a lack of knowledge of the passage rather than an implication. Based on what I've read so far from you, it's more than just a guess.

If I had quoted the constitution I would have put it in quotes now lets not go making assumptions about what I am and am not saying.

That is EXACTLY what I didn't do. I didn't assume anything. I took the statment at face value, and you sited me for not getting the implication. Now you tell me NOT to make assumptions. For God Sakes man, make up your mind.

Regarding innocence. You can play word games till the cows come home, but it won't change the facts. Presuming someone is innocent, doesn't make them innocent. Geez, how much more simple can I put it???

The definition of presume is: "to expect or assume especially with confidence". Using this basis it is not incorrect of me to say that someone is innocent until convicted by a court of law. The court itself must presume innocence as stated in the constitution but the individual themselves are innocent under the law until convicted. But if you wish to continue arguing a completely worthless debate on the semantics of words go right ahead but I think I won't bother to respond because the point of your whole arguement is now based around an attack on the language used rather than the points made.

See above.

Why don't you spend some time actually arguing a legitimate point like trying to prove that it's illegal for DTV to sue someone for purchasing a device that DTV has good faith to believe the person is using to steal from them?

I did exactly that in a post prior to your gibberish. Now I am spending my time with this. In either case, you lost me with your convoluted logic. It's obvious that any intelligent debate with you is futile. When you can actually stand by one of your points for more than 10 seconds before contradicting yourself sentance after sentance after every tired sentance, let me know. Bye...