The DirecTV litigation machinery continues to turn with the company now having sued over 25,000 individuals. Although the DTV has been accused of using “litigation tactics aimed at hindering discovery and forcing monetary settlements from those unable to fight a drawn-out legal battle,” (See DirecTV v. Bonilla, 2005 WL 851273 (C.D.Cal. 2005)) the company has recently brought the fight to a whole new level.
Not content with their already hefty damages ($10K per violation) provided under 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), DTV wants to hit individuals with an additional $10K of damages under a law that is targeted at any company that “manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes” a device used to decrypt their signal. While this law seems to make sense on the books, in a recently filed case, DTV argued that an individual was liable under this provision.
And, what was the heinous offense, you ask? Producing hundreds of pirate devices that he sold to friends and family? Unlooping or reprogramming dozens of smart cards? Designing and building the next generation pirate access device? Wrong, wrong and wrong.
The terrible crime that merits double the damages is the actual act of “inserting” a reprogrammed Access Card into a DTV Receiver. Yep. That’s it. Simply inserting the card into the receiver can make you liable under this provision just as if you built 1,000 unloopers in your basement and sold them on eBay.
This is really an amazing statement if you think about it. Just think about if we started calling similar behavior “assembly” “modification” or “manufacturing”…
Grandma could be a manufacturer for inserting a videotape into her VCR…
Parents could be “assemblers” when they follow the instructions to put training wheels on their kids new bike…
Little Jimmy could be sued for putting a CD into his PlayStation…
And, yuppies everywhere would certainly be “assemblers” or “manufacturers” for following the incomprehensible instructions and putting together their IKEA furniture (hey, come to think of it, maybe they’d be “importers” too)…
Although it’s very unlikely that any of the above will ever happen, the essence of the DTV claim is absurd. Hopefully courts will see through this bald attempt to double the monetary damages DTV already received. Otherwise, if DTV prevails, we should consider adding the Communications Act to the list of absurd laws already on the books in the country.