# DirecTV Terms of Service Discussion



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Let's see if we can keep this on civil.

IMHO, the risk if opening the receiver and damaging it.

I also believe that's the whole reason behind those two sections of the Lease Addendum.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P500014



> CARE OF EQUIPMENT.
> You are responsible for the loss of or any damage to the DIRECTV equipment that you have leased from DIRECTV. You shall have no right to sell, give away, transfer, pledge, mortgage, remove, relocate, alter or tamper with the DIRECTV equipment at any time. ...


And...


> RETURN OF DIRECTV EQUIPMENT.
> If you cease to be DIRECTV's customer for any reason (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) or if you decide to disconnect/cancel/terminate your DVR service or HD Access fee (if you are leasing a DVR or HD Receiver, respectively), you must call DIRECTV within seven (7) days after the termination of your DIRECTV programming services, DVR service or HD Access fee, as applicable, to obtain information from DIRECTV necessary to arrange for a ground or air freight service to pick up and deliver all of your DIRECTV equipment to DIRECTV. You acknowledge that the DIRECTV equipment belongs to DIRECTV and the DIRECTV equipment, including the access card inserted into each receiver, must be returned to DIRECTV in good working order, normal wear and tear excepted. In the event that all of the DIRECTV equipment is not returned to DIRECTV within thirty (30) days of the termination of your DIRECTV programming services or is damaged when it is returned to DIRECTV, you agree to pay DIRECTV the sum of $55 per each DIRECTV standard receiver; $200 for each DIRECTV DVR Receiver; $240 for each DIRECTV HD Receiver; or $470 for each DIRECTV HD DVR Receiver that is not returned to DIRECTV or that is damaged when it is returned to DIRECTV as compensation for a portion of the expenses incurred by DIRECTV in establishing your account and providing you the DIRECTV equipment for your use...


IMHO, these two paragraphs are designed to keep the subscriber who has no business opening up an electronic component from damaging something that doesn't belong to them. If I damage something I'm renting you can bet the farm that I'm going to have to pay for it. By extension if I open my leased DVR and break it, am I to expect that DirecTV will give me new one and not care that I broke. Of course not. They're going to want me to pay for it.

Now I guess you could say that the Return of DirecTV Equipment has nothing to do with the Care of Equipment provision. That just doesn't make any sense to me. It says that "You acknowledge that the DIRECTV equipment belongs to DIRECTV and the DIRECTV equipment, including the access card inserted into each receiver, must be returned to DIRECTV in good working order".

Let's assume you open the receiver and break it. What do you think should happen next (keep in mind we can't discuss anything deceptive, immoral, or illegal)?

So, what does it mean?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> So, what does it mean? IMHO, these two paragraphs are designed to keep the subscriber who has no business opening up an electronic component from damaging something that doesn't belong to them.


Are there some that think otherwise? I thought your opinion was obvious.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Are there some that think otherwise? I thought your opinion was obvious.


Yes. AAMOF a DBSTalk member posted today that the Lease Addendum doesn't say that and that my opinion was misinformation.

Mike


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

So what is your question? Everyone knows about these agreements. If people choose to ignore them, so be it. They are taking a risk, and they certainly know it. What's the risk? Cash deducted from your checking account......or a BIG fat bill!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

DIRECTV Customer Agreement said:


> You shall have no right to ... alter


That is the agreement that comes with DIRECTV service. I don't think there's any question of what that means.

The only question is whether or not this is a fair and enforceable agreement, in other words would it "hold up in court." I guess I don't understand why it would not.

It seems to me "I know the risks and I'm going to do it anyway," or "They'll never find me" are certainly not the sort of things that would "hold up in court."


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Nicely stated, MicroBeta.

Altering would include replacing the hard disk drive, I should think. 

So far, I've only altered owned units. (And plan to keep it that way.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

wildbill129 said:


> So what is your question? Everyone knows about these agreements. If people choose to ignore them, so be it. They are taking a risk, and they certainly know it. What's the risk? Cash deducted from your checking account......or a BIG fat bill!


There seems to quite a big question.

Some have posted that the Lease Addendum doesn't say or imply that you can't open the receiver. Further, some think that opening a DVR for the purposes of putting in a larger hard drive does *not* fit the definition of "to alter" or "to tamper with" and as such not expressly against the rules of the addendum.

I contend that while you could argue those points, the big risk is damaging the receiver. Once the damage is done the definition of alter or tamper become irrelevant.

However, some believe there are no consequences spelled out in the addendum for damage caused by trying to do an up grade which means you can't/won't be penalized monetarily.

Mike


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't know how to say this without sounding flip, so I apologize in advance. 

Of those who think that replacing a hard drive isn't altering it... would you change your mind if I replaced your hard drive with an 80GB? I don't think the word "alter" applies any differently if the alteration made things better or worse.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Nicely stated, MicroBeta.
> 
> Altering would include replacing the hard disk drive, I should think.
> 
> ...


I would have thought the same thing. In my eyes replacing any component inside the box would be altering the receiver.

However, if the receiver works I don't know there is anything that could be done about it or if you would even want to.

If it doesn't work and they decide you need to pay for it, what recourse do you have?

Mike


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't know how to say this without sounding flip, so I apologize in advance.
> 
> Of those who think that replacing a hard drive isn't altering it... would you change your mind if I replaced your hard drive with an 80GB? I don't think the word "alter" applies any differently if the alteration made things better or worse.


I wouldn't mind if you put a 1TB drive in. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> There seems to quite a big question.
> 
> Some have posted that the Lease Addendum doesn't say or imply that you can't open the receiver. Further, some think that opening a DVR for the purposes of putting in a larger hard drive does *not* fit the definition of "to alter" or "to tamper with" and as such not expressly against the rules of the addendum.
> 
> ...


I call that self justification. If someone really thinks that's not a violation of TOS, they need to lay off the leafy green stuff. It's like driving 10 over the speed limit. You know it's not legal, but you probably won't get cited for it, so it might be worth the risk.

I will not open my boxes. They are not mine to open. (and with esata, who needs to?)


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

wildbill129 said:


> I call that self justification. If someone really thinks that's not a violation of TOS, they need to lay off the leafy green stuff. It's like driving 10 over the speed limit. You know it's not legal, but you probably won't get cited for it, so it might be worth the risk.
> 
> I will not open my boxes. They are not mine to open.


I think self justification is a bit strong.

I certainly can see how somebody might think that they should be able to do a simple hard drive swap within the terms of the addendum.

I don't see it that way but I can understand the argument.

I agree with you. If I want a larger drive on my leased receiver then I'll use eSATA. Actually I'm using eSATA on a HR21 that I own...just too lazy to worry about it. 

Mike


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Obviously if you open it and break it in the process you're responsible since it doesn't belong to you but the chances of being charged are slim to none unless it's obvious what happened.

The returns warehouse has skids literally piled to the rafters full of returned receivers. You really think they open and check each one?

There really is no purpose to this thread as this topic been beaten to death over and over and over.

I'm really surprised it hasn't been locked ..... or moved to siberia .... or maybe I'm not surprised.



MicroBeta said:


> Let's assume you open the receiver and break it. What do you think should happen next (keep in mind we can't discuss anything deceptive, immoral, or illegal)?
> 
> So, what does it mean?


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> I think self justification is a bit strong.


You are obviously nicer than me!:grin:


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

The original question was, "what does it mean?". The answer is not much.

Paragraph "Care of Equipment" specifically uses the term "You shall have no right"... this is not a synonym for 'prohibited'. It simply means you have no implied right to take the listed actions, it does not say you are prohibited from taking such actions. Big difference. The paragraph does not meet the 'reasonable person' test... for example: would a reasonable person believe that DirecTV intended to *prohibit* a subscriber from removing the receiver, or relocating it within their home? Of course not. The term is used to protect rights, not prohibit actions.

Paragraph, "Return of DirecTV Equipment". This is probably the most misunderstood and misquoted paragraph of the Lease Addendum. This paragraph covers failure to return equipment or damage to equipment only. Nothing in that paragraph applies to any other part of the Customer Agreement or Lease Addendum. This paragraph simply lists the possibility of liquidated damages for failure to return, or returning damaged equipment owned by DirecTV. Nothing more, and to associate the two paragraphs is incorrect.

As for the Customer Agreement and Lease Addendum. Obviously unconscionable. I can't say what every single court would do, but I will say that it's my opinion that an overwhelming percentage of courts would not honor the agreement. This has been proven to DirecTV on many occasions... all you need to do is start searching.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TBlazer07 said:


> Obviously if you open it and break it in the process you're responsible since it doesn't belong to you but the chances of being charged are slim to none unless it's obvious what happened.
> 
> The returns warehouse has skids literally piled to the rafters full of returned receivers. You really think they open and check each one?
> 
> ...


It actually was suggested by a moderator. 

This thread's purpose? To remain a singular place for everyone to just get it all out. That way future threads about how to replace a drive only need to have a small warning and a link to this thread without the whole long discussion again (and again [and again { and yet again...}]) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Which was exactly WHY I stated "or maybe I'm not surprised" at the end of my comment. 


Tom Robertson said:


> It actually was suggested by a moderator.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

I know what a bad comparison car leases are to D* equipment leases, but in this case, there are some similarities. In both cases, the leased merchandise is not owned by you, and you are prohibited from (or not given the right to) make any modifications. Still, many people who lease vehicles will swap out the rims, tint the windows, install satellite radio receivers, roof racks, trailer hitches, ECU chips, fog lights, chrome accessories, etc. As long as those modifications are removed and the vehicle is returned without damage from them (eg. no holes left in the dash from the satellite radio bracket) then all is fine.

Now, I'm not saying that this is justification for modifying D* equipment, but given how things work in other familiar leasing situations, I can see how some may interpret D*'s lease terms in a similar fashion.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

csgo said:


> The original question was, "what does it mean?". The answer is not much.
> 
> Paragraph "Care of Equipment" specifically uses the term "You shall have no right"... this is not a synonym for 'prohibited'. It simply means you have no implied right to take the listed actions, it does not say you are prohibited from taking such actions. Big difference.


In what jurisdictions are you licensed? In Tennessee it means exactly what it says. They don't agree to allow it. Add in the other terms from the lease agreement that says altering it is prohibited and it's pretty clear you really aren't allowed to go messing with the internals of your unit.

Whether Directv will take action to stop you is another matter, but good luck getting a court to accept an estoppel argument over a $500 DVR that you've literally decided to waste the Court's time with.



> The paragraph does not meet the 'reasonable person' test...


I disagree. It's quite clear and unambiguous.



> for example: would a reasonable person believe that DirecTV intended to *prohibit* a subscriber from removing the receiver, or relocating it within their home? Of course not. The term is used to protect rights, not prohibit actions.


That's not altering the equipment in any material way and therefore not the issue addressed. It's also not the subject of this thread.



> Paragraph, "Return of DirecTV Equipment". This is probably the most misunderstood and misquoted paragraph of the Lease Addendum. This paragraph covers failure to return equipment or damage to equipment only. Nothing in that paragraph applies to any other part of the Customer Agreement or Lease Addendum. This paragraph simply lists the possibility of liquidated damages for failure to return, or returning damaged equipment owned by DirecTV. Nothing more, and to associate the two paragraphs is incorrect.


It's black-letter contracts law that the entirety of the agreement is to be read and interpreted together. Be very, very careful if you try to isolate paragraphs and say they are not essentially in para materia.



> As for the Customer Agreement and Lease Addendum. Obviously unconscionable. I can't say what every single court would do, but I will say that it's my opinion that an overwhelming percentage of courts would not honor the agreement. This has been proven to DirecTV on many occasions... all you need to do is start searching.


You need to be REALLY careful that what you're suggesting to people is ACTUALLY the law in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. :nono:


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

LameLefty, 

I sure hope you don't work much with contract law. We certainly disagree. I'm in Missouri... now retired after thirty years of better than average results.

A thousand questions come to mind... as for the unconscionable conclusion... that's been decided many times including the California Supreme. Take a look on Pacer ... it will enlighten you.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

csgo said:


> LameLefty,
> 
> I sure hope you don't work much with contract law. We certainly disagree. I'm in Missouri... now retired after thirty years of better than average results.
> 
> A thousand questions come to mind... as for the unconscionable conclusion... that's been decided many times including the California Supreme. Take a look on Pacer ... it will enlighten you.


In 13 years of practice, I've done enough to be confident that your interpretation is NOT a good statement of Tennessee law. And I would never suggest otherwise on an internet forum read by thousands of people a day from all over the country without some serious disclaimers; I guess if you're retired you don't have to worry about ethical complaints for the unlicensed practice of law and disbarment but I do.

And my final word on this topic to anyone who opens up a box secured by Torx security screws: be very, very careful of the potential consequences of what you're doing.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rudeney said:


> I know what a bad comparison car leases are to D* equipment leases, but in this case, there are some similarities. In both cases, the leased merchandise is not owned by you, and you are prohibited from (or not given the right to) make any modifications. Still, many people who lease vehicles will swap out the rims, tint the windows, install satellite radio receivers, roof racks, trailer hitches, ECU chips, fog lights, chrome accessories, etc. As long as those modifications are removed and the vehicle is returned without damage from them (eg. no holes left in the dash from the satellite radio bracket) then all is fine.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that this is justification for modifying D* equipment, but given how things work in other familiar leasing situations, I can see how some may interpret D*'s lease terms in a similar fashion.


I have to agree with you. If it all works, what happened before hand is irrelevant...but it's not really the point.

The hazard of blindly saying it's not a problem will cause some guy out there who shouldn't be inside a piece of electronics to go ahead and replace that drive.

Now that noob has dropped the drive and cracked the main board? What happens then?

Before anyone says "that's not very likely", I used to be in IT and have seen things like this happen. It can and does happen, especially by people who are inexperienced in working inside electronics.

I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

rudeney said:


> I know what a bad comparison car leases are to D* equipment leases, but in this case, there are some similarities. In both cases, the leased merchandise is not owned by you, and you are prohibited from (or not given the right to) make any modifications. Still, many people who lease vehicles will swap out the rims, tint the windows, install satellite radio receivers, roof racks, trailer hitches, ECU chips, fog lights, chrome accessories, etc. As long as those modifications are removed and the vehicle is returned without damage from them (eg. no holes left in the dash from the satellite radio bracket) then all is fine.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that this is justification for modifying D* equipment, but given how things work in other familiar leasing situations, I can see how some may interpret D*'s lease terms in a similar fashion.


You're not supposed to modify a leased vehicle either, but people do it then return it in the original condition so that the dealer doesn't know it was modified. No different with D*. You're not supposed to modify it, but people still do and if they change it back to original condition, nobody knows/cares.

In either case, you're still not supposed to do it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MicroBeta said:


> I think self justification is a bit strong.


When someone chooses to ignore the T&Cs, what else could it be?

The manuals that come with the receivers make it clear that there are "no user-serviceable parts inside". To me this suggests that changing out parts is not something an end-user is authorized to do. Repairs must be authorized and performed by authorized persons. There is no implication that if you think you can pull it off that you are logically authorized to give it a go.

I class anything as parts that can be removed and that includes fans and hard drives.


Plus HD DVR manual said:


> Attempted self-repair may also void your warranty. Changes or modifcations not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance (by the warranty or by the manufacturer) could void the user's authority to operate the equipment.


The whole "may" or "could" part would seem to be a rather ominous threat with decidedly indefinite consequences.

The sticky part about all of this is that if DIRECTV (or any other equipment provider) doesn't actively and consistently enforce the policy, it "may" not be considered valid nor enforceable.


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> In 13 years of practice, I've done enough to be confident that your interpretation is NOT a good statement of Tennessee law. And I would never suggest otherwise on an internet forum read by thousands of people a day from all over the country without some serious disclaimers; I guess if you're retired you don't have to worry about ethical complaints for the unlicensed practice of law and disbarment but I do.
> 
> And my final word on this topic to anyone who opens up a box secured by Torx security screws: be very, very careful of the potential consequences of what you're doing.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=directv+unconscionable+court

See DirecTV Early Cancellation Fee Litigation, 2009 WL 2912656 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2009).

I can find 1009 cases where various parts of the Agreement were ruled unconscionable, but I'm unable to find any where DirecTV prevailed. Amazing.

I'm really amazed with the far reaching interpretations of the DirecTV Customer Agreement or Lease Addendum. I'll maintain that reserving a right does not prohibit an action. The Lease Addendum says, "You shall have no right to sell, give away, transfer, pledge, mortgage, remove, relocate, alter or tamper with the DIRECTV equipment at any time." Even if we enter into an agreement that you have no right to visit the zoo this weekend that does not mean you are prohibited from visiting the zoo. You have no right to drive a vehicle, but that doesn't mean you are prohibited from doing so.

As for the $470 fee... that applies to only one scenario, if you fail to return the receiver in good working condition within 30 days of termination. That applies to nothing else. Even if the "Care of Equipment" paragraph were worded to *prohibit* modifications then the remedy for violation would not be determined by the "Return of DirecTV Equipment" paragraph. The sole remedy under the Customer Agreement is arbitration.

To satisfy our friendly Tennessee barrister I will offer the disclaimer that I am not offering legal advice.

-Joe


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

csgo said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=directv+unconscionable+court
> 
> See DirecTV Early Cancellation Fee Litigation, 2009 WL 2912656 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2009).
> 
> ...


Well if they didn't intend for it to mean that you can't do it then what does it mean?

Mike


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> Well if they didn't intend for it to mean that you can't do it then what does it mean?
> 
> Mike


I believe that DirecTV said exactly what they intended to say. They intended to reserve their rights. If they intended to prohibit actions I suggest that they would have said exactly that.

A court decides what they intended to say.

So put yourself on the jury. Seriously consider the issue. It all comes down to one sentence: "You shall have no right to sell, give away, transfer, pledge, mortgage, remove, relocate, alter or tamper with the DIRECTV equipment at any time." As a juror would you believe that DirecTV really meant to say "prohibited" and just forgot to use that word? Why didn't they choose to use the word "prohibited"? What would be your verdict?

Now on to the other sentence in question. It says, "In the event that all of the DIRECTV equipment is not returned to DIRECTV within thirty (30) days of the termination of your DIRECTV programming services or is damaged when it is returned to DIRECTV, you agree to pay DIRECTV the sum of $55 per each DIRECTV standard receiver; $200 for each DIRECTV DVR Receiver; $240 for each DIRECTV HD Receiver; or $470 for each DIRECTV HD DVR Receiver that is not returned to DIRECTV or that is damaged when it is returned to DIRECTV as compensation for a portion of the expenses incurred by DIRECTV in establishing your account and providing you the DIRECTV equipment for your use". There's really another sentence fragment that applies to the above and it says, "must be returned to DIRECTV in good working order, normal wear and tear excepted". Pretty clear. And yes it sounds very much like a vehicle lease.

So if a customer removes a sticker from the receiver, or removes a screw, is that "damage" to the extent that the unit is not "in good working order, normal wear and tear excepted"? If the hard drive is replaced with a larger one is the unit "damaged" and not "in good working order, normal wear and tear excepted"? Many, or even most here would consider that an improvement.

If you, as a juror, interpret the Lease Agreement in the strictest sense it is impossible to comply with both of the above as you would not be permitted to "remove" the unit to return it. That's what it says.

I believe if DirecTV intended to prohibit actions they would have said so. I also believe that the "Return of DirecTV Equipment" paragraph and clauses apply to just that... returning equipment.

What did DirecTV intend to say? Why believe that they intended anything more or less than what they actually said?


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

The way I see it:

If I am leasing equipment, its not mine until I purchase it.

If I delve into a leased item, I am getting into something that does not belong to me. Sure, your miles will vary, but this is just me I am talking about. 

I would have a problem if someone took it upon themselves to get into something of mine without my expressed written consent..... such as that time that someone broke into my car and modified my dash by removing the stereo. 

Like I said above: YMMV. I need to sleep good at night, and I do this by adhering to simple principals in life, such as "if it's not mine to mess with, I don't". 

I own 7 DirecTV boxes and not one has been opened. One has an eSata drive on it and that is more TV than I would ever be able to watch. 

Flame me, justify your own actions, do what you want. I have a great life thats based on a few simple ideals my mother instilled me with at an early age.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

So since some claim that "You shall have no right to" does not mean prohibit, just what does it mean then? You've said what it's not, so tell me what it is.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

csgo said:


> ...
> So put yourself on the jury. Seriously consider the issue. It all comes down to one sentence: "You shall have no right to sell, give away, transfer, pledge, mortgage, remove, relocate, alter or tamper with the DIRECTV equipment at any time." As a juror would you believe that DirecTV really meant to say "prohibited" and just forgot to use that word? Why didn't they choose to use the word "prohibited"? What would be your verdict?
> ...


Perhaps this is where your being a lawyer is getting in the way. I think that the average reasonable person would would take "You shall have no right" to be the same as prohibited. They own it, they have all the rights to it. Any right they don't give to me, they are reserving for themselves. I am prohibited from taking that right.

Again, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe, there is a legal difference. As a juror I would think that anyone that "altered" the DVR was in violation of the agreement.

Your point about the fee being assessed for receivers that are damaged is a better argument. It would be a stretch to say that a functioning receiver with a bigger hard drive is "damaged". It may be altered in such a way that they could not send it to another customer for support reasons, but it would be hard to call it damaged.

However, since there is always the risk of damaging it when opening it, it would certainly be wise to counsel a person that they may be liable if they open it and it is damaged. In the same vein, we should counsel people to power off their DVR before moving it, because it could be damaged.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

csgo said:


> I believe that DirecTV said exactly what they intended to say. They intended to reserve their rights. If they intended to prohibit actions I suggest that they would have said exactly that.
> 
> A court decides what they intended to say.
> 
> So put yourself on the jury. Seriously consider the issue. It all comes down to one sentence: "You shall have no right to sell, give away, transfer, pledge, mortgage, remove, relocate, alter or tamper with the DIRECTV equipment at any time." As a juror would you believe that DirecTV really meant to say "prohibited" and just forgot to use that word? Why didn't they choose to use the word "prohibited"? What would be your verdict?


If I was on a jury and this came up, I would interpret "You shall have no right" to mean that I'm not allowed. I wouldn't take it to mean " maybe you can or maybe you can't"

On a jury I would read the following "sell, give away, transfer, pledge, mortgage, remove, relocate, alter or tamper". As a juror, I would interpret these as the kinds of things that any reasonable person would be prohibited from doing with an item that he/she doesn't own and thus giving context to "You shall have no right". Context is important because the Lease Addendum is a complete document and common sense applies.

Yes, if I were on a jury I would believe it reasonable to assume that "You shall have no right" to mean prohibited.

I'm not a lawyer and I suspect that most non-lawyers would agree with my analysis. BTW, those are the kinds of people that would be on such a jury...I'm just sayin' :grin:



> Now on to the other sentence in question. It says, "In the event that all of the DIRECTV equipment is not returned to DIRECTV within thirty (30) days of the termination of your DIRECTV programming services or is damaged when it is returned to DIRECTV, you agree to pay DIRECTV the sum of $55 per each DIRECTV standard receiver; $200 for each DIRECTV DVR Receiver; $240 for each DIRECTV HD Receiver; or $470 for each DIRECTV HD DVR Receiver that is not returned to DIRECTV or that is damaged when it is returned to DIRECTV as compensation for a portion of the expenses incurred by DIRECTV in establishing your account and providing you the DIRECTV equipment for your use". There's really another sentence fragment that applies to the above and it says, "must be returned to DIRECTV in good working order, normal wear and tear excepted". Pretty clear. And yes it sounds very much like a vehicle lease.
> 
> *So if a customer removes a sticker from the receiver, or removes a screw, is that "damage" to the extent that the unit is not "in good working order, normal wear and tear excepted"? If the hard drive is replaced with a larger one is the unit "damaged" and not "in good working order, normal wear and tear excepted"?* Many, or even most here would consider that an improvement.


I certainly don't think a larger drive or a torn sticker would constitute damage. A reasonable person would see damage as something physically seen, e.g. a dent, or something that, if proven, might be unseen but could cause the unit to not function, e.g. a short that cause damage to chips. None of which fits your example bolded above, which, BTW I consider way to restrictive as to be useful.

However, in a previous post I proposed the scenario where the user dropped the drive and damaged a board. It would be kind of hard to cry ignorance in that case.



> If you, as a juror, interpret the Lease Agreement in the strictest sense it is impossible to comply with both of the above as you would not be permitted to "remove" the unit to return it. That's what it says.


Any reasonable person would not fall into that trap. AAMOF, it's the kind of semantics game that annoys most reasonable people.

IMHO, a reasonable person would certainly not think you would be prohibited from returning their receiver.



> I believe if DirecTV intended to prohibit actions they would have said so. I also believe that the "Return of DirecTV Equipment" paragraph and clauses apply to just that... returning equipment.
> 
> What did DirecTV intend to say? Why believe that they intended anything more or less than what they actually said?


Actually, this kind of makes some sense. I believe it's all intended to keep the non-tech savvy sub from treading where he doesn't belong.

Now this is an interesting discussion. 

Mike


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

RobertE said:


> So since some claim that "You shall have no right to" does not mean prohibit, just what does it mean then? You've said what it's not, so tell me what it is.


The $64 question! It's much easier to define what something isn't than what it is. In this case you want to define the word "right". I haven't looked it up in Black's but the various definitions would probably baffle all of us and not answer the question. Everything from a direction to constitutional law and you could probably find conflicting definitions you could insert as desired.

In any case I don't think you could find a definition that makes the leap (in context) to "prohibits".

Just because you don't have a "right" to do something doesn't mean it's prohibited. You don't have a right to climb Mt. Everest but you're not prohibited from doing so.

Perhaps the wording was intentionally vague? Wouldn't be the first time.

We won't solve this here. Obviously different people read that one sentence in different ways. *That in itself is the answer to me.*

For the record: I think I have a total of 12 receivers right now. Not sure how many are DVRs, but quite a few. I have not taken any of them apart and don't have any desire to do so, but if there was a need or benefit I wouldn't hesitate to do so. Others obviously disagree, and I would say to them that I promise I'll never make them disassemble their DirecTV receiver.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

csgo said:


> ...
> In any case I don't think you could find a definition that makes the leap (in context) to "prohibits".
> 
> Just because you don't have a "right" to do something doesn't mean it's prohibited. You don't have a right to climb Mt. Everest but you're not prohibited from doing so.
> ...


This is similar to your zoo and driving argument earlier, and it seems to be using the term "right" is if it means the type of "inalienable rights" spoken of in the declaration of independence. You don't have an inalienable right to climb Mt. Everest. However, the Nepalese government can give or deny rights to climb in their country, and if they say "you don't have the right to climb Mt. Everest", then they are prohibiting you from legally climbing.

You don't have an inalienable right to drive, but if the state says that "we are taking away your right to drive", then they are prohibiting you from legally driving.

Those are government examples, but let's take a look at an example from every day life. My neighbor wants to borrow my mower. I say sure, but you don't have the right to alter it. If he upgrades the engine, he is doing something he doesn't have the right to do. I didn't give him that right.
Did I prohibit him from doing it. I would think that a reasonable person would say that by saying "you don't have a right to alter it" I was saying the same thing as "you are prohited from altering it."


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> However, some believe there are no consequences spelled out in the addendum for damage caused by trying to do an up grade which means you can't/won't be penalized monetarily.
> 
> Mike


I don't think that anybody has ever said that the lease agreement does not allow for any monetary penalty if the customer damages the leased equipment for any number of reasons (not limited to damage done by someone attempting to replace an internal disk).

On the other extreme though, lots of people *often* make incorrect statements such as replacing the internal disk will mean that they they then "own" the leased receiver and will have to pay $470 for it, or that merely breaking the warranty seal sticker on the box will mean that they will be charged $470 whenever they return it, or that any violation of anything in the lease agreement will make you subject to that $470 charge.

So we basically have lots of people on one side giving out lots of misinformation while arguing against something that nobody ever said.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> I don't think that anybody has ever said that the lease agreement does not allow for any monetary penalty if the customer damages the leased equipment for any number of reasons (not limited to damage done by someone attempting to replace an internal disk).
> 
> On the other extreme though, lots of people *often* make incorrect statements such as replacing the internal disk will mean that they they then "own" the leased receiver and will have to pay $470 for it, or that merely breaking the warranty seal sticker on the box will mean that they will be charged $470 whenever they return it, or that any violation of anything in the lease agreement will make you subject to that $470 charge.
> 
> So we basically have lots of people on one side giving out lots of misinformation while arguing against something that nobody ever said.


To be clear, the premise I started this thread on was that if the receiver works when DirecTV (or maybe even a tech at your home) gets it, then there's very little chance of there being consequences.

The second premise is the risk is breaking your receiver while you're trying to put in that big honkin' hard drive. 

Based on the Lease Addendum what would happen next? 

Mike


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

I keep trying to find some case law that would directly relate to this scenario, but not a lot of luck so far. What I find relates more to computer leases, and I think that's probably a fair comparison. Quite a few cases cite a case known as Computer Systems of America Inc v. Unum Life Insurance Company that ended up at the US Court of Appeals. You can read about it at the following link:
http://openjurist.org/975/f2d/922/computer-systems-of-america-inc-v-unum-life-insurance-company

So if we look at the situation of a user replacing the hard drive in a DirecTV DVR with an upgraded drive. The court decided that an upgrade on a leased computer is not "additional equipment" but rather a "substitution". They also found in that case that the lease wording was not clear. The court said that 
"where the phraseology can support reasonable difference of opinion as to the meaning of the words employed and obligations undertaken."). Where "a contract is thought ambiguous, the court may receive extrinsic evidence, even parol evidence, to determine whether uncertainty exists."

That seems to apply to the Lease Addendum in spades! We certainly have a reasonable difference of opinion regarding the phraseology of the Addendum.

The Lessor said that the upgrades "add[ing] to the Equipment additional equipment not readily removable or, even if readily removable, which cannot be removed without reducing the value or usefulness of the Equipment below the value or usefulness which it would have had without any such additional equipment." Sounds familiar.

What did the court say? According to the court, the parties did not intend the term "substitution" to encompass every circumstance in which a part is removed and another is put in its place, but only those circumstances in which an "equivalent" part is put back in which "does the same thing" as the removed part. In other words, "substitutions" and "replacements" were found to refer to installations which maintain the equipment in its state or condition at the onset of the lease.

That seems clear that an upgraded hard drive "does the same thing" as the removed part, and that such a "substitution" was allowed as it maintained the equipment in the state or condition at the onset of the lease.

Pretty powerful decision.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Here's a hypothetical question for all you real and would be lawyers out there:

Customer OWNs the receiver (lease agreement doesn't apply).
Customer has protection plan which does cover OWNED equipment (and replacements are owned).
Customer modifies owned receiver and receiver dies during surgery.

What rules apply to this customer (and yes, there are 10's of thousands of legitimately owned HR2x receivers out there which belong to all registered mdu account type customers out there predating July 2009 activations)?


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Here's a hypothetical question for all you real and would be lawyers out there:
> 
> Customer OWNs the receiver (lease agreement doesn't apply).
> Customer has protection plan which does cover OWNED equipment (and replacements are owned).
> ...


I'd bet on an exclusion for such events, but I've never seen a copy of the protection plan or what it does or doesn't cover. Sorry.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

csgo said:


> I'd bet on an exclusion for such events, but I've never seen a copy of the protection plan or what it does or doesn't cover. Sorry.


http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/DirecTV_service_contract_v4.pdf

If you really wanted to read it.

The bottom line with this thread isn't what is legal and what isn't. It's what does someone want to justify to themself and what they don't.

All agreements are in place to protect the company who wrote it. There are many parts of agreements that will never be used for an average customer. The majority of the extreme parts are there for fraud cases or when theft of signal gets involved.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

csgo said:


> I keep trying to find some case law that would directly relate to this scenario, but not a lot of luck so far. What I find relates more to computer leases, and I think that's probably a fair comparison. Quite a few cases cite a case known as Computer Systems of America Inc v. Unum Life Insurance Company that ended up at the US Court of Appeals. You can read about it at the following link:
> http://openjurist.org/975/f2d/922/computer-systems-of-america-inc-v-unum-life-insurance-company
> 
> So if we look at the situation of a user replacing the hard drive in a DirecTV DVR with an upgraded drive. The court decided that an upgrade on a leased computer is not "additional equipment" but rather a "substitution". They also found in that case that the lease wording was not clear. The court said that "where the phraseology can support reasonable difference of opinion as to the meaning of the words employed and obligations undertaken."). Where "a contract is thought ambiguous, the court may receive extrinsic evidence, even parol evidence, to determine whether uncertainty exists."
> ...


Hmmm...Interesting argument. 

The question I have is this. Does installing an upgrade constitute altering the receiver? Further, does one lease agreement that has a restriction against adding additional equipment necessarily equal a restriction on altering equipment?

IIUC, your example states that replacing a hard drive would be substitution and not an addition to the computer and thus not in violation of the restriction against installing additional equipment.

I will give you that a substitution is not an addition and therefore not a violation. However, the DirecTV addendum doesn't have a restriction against additions but rather alterations. I could be wrong but it would seem, to me at least, that you would have to argue that replacing the existing hard drive with a different model/capacity hard drive is not an alteration; that substituting one drive for another isn't an alteration.

If it isn't altering the system then it's not a violation of the lease addendum, the argument ends there, and the cited case is moot.

However, if it is altering the system then how does a substitution not being an addition trump altering?



> That seems clear that an upgraded hard drive "does the same thing" as the removed part, and that such a "substitution" was allowed as it maintained the equipment in the state or condition at the onset of the lease.
> 
> Pretty powerful decision.


Interesting argument. 

But it's irrelevant. As I stated before the risk is busting the box.

Everyone wants to side step this issue and discuss the definition of alter or tamper. We all know, and I've said over and over, that if nothings broken then it very unlikely to be a problem. What happens if you break it? That's the 800lb gorilla in the room that everyone's ignoring.

Mike


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Actually an upgraded HD may draw more power or cause indexing issues. This may cause more stress on the system.

Only engineers would be able to prove or deny it but it's an easy argument to make.


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> http://www.directv.com/learn/pdf/DirecTV_service_contract_v4.pdf
> 
> If you really wanted to read it.
> 
> ...


We both already know the answer to your question. What I found interesting is that other than in two states the "protection plan" is administered by none other than AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc.

Yes AIG, and AIG WarrantyGuard, Inc. is the company that has been so 'popular' with Best Buy extended warranties.

Good luck with that one!


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> But it's irrelevant. As I stated before the risk is busting the.
> 
> Everyone wants to side step this issue and discuss the definition of alter or tamper. We all know, and I've said over and over, that if nothings broken then it very unlikely to be a problem. What happens if you break it? That's the 800lb gorilla in the room that everyone's ignoring.
> 
> Mike


You break it you bought it, modified, unmodified, used, new or refurbished.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> Actually an upgraded HD may draw more power or cause indexing issues. This may cause more stress on the system.
> 
> Only engineers would be able to prove or deny it but it's an easy argument to make.


will e-sata do the same thing?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> will e-sata do the same thing?


eSATAs have their own power supply, so it really would only be the increase load on the database, but eSATAs aren't in violation of the lease agreement.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> eSATAs have their own power supply, so it really would only be the increase load on the database, but eSATAs aren't in violation of the lease agreement.


I agree 100% that installing an internal drive is a violation of the lease addendum.

What I'm not sure about is what's the consequence?

MIke


----------



## mortimer (Nov 6, 2007)

> CARE OF EQUIPMENT.
> You are responsible for the loss of or any damage to the DIRECTV equipment that you have leased from DIRECTV. You shall have no right to sell, give away, transfer, pledge, mortgage, remove, relocate, alter or tamper with the DIRECTV equipment at any time. ...


For those that are saying that the above prohibits opening the box and putting a bigger drive in... does that also mean that it prohibits moving a receiver from one room to another, or to your new house (before calling the Movers Connection)? I recently moved a receiver from on top of the TV to underneath it. Did I break this clause of the TOS?

p.s. this is somewhat of a hypothetical, as the receiver in question is "owned". However, I'm pretty sure my wife recently relocated one of the "leased" receivers to dust underneath it, then relocated it back. She broke the TOS! Twice!


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

mortimer said:


> For those that are saying that the above prohibits opening the box and putting a bigger drive in... does that also mean that it prohibits moving a receiver from one room to another, or to your new house (before calling the Movers Connection)? I recently moved a receiver from on top of the TV to underneath it. Did I break this clause of the TOS?
> 
> p.s. this is somewhat of a hypothetical, as the receiver in question is "owned". However, I'm pretty sure my wife recently relocated one of the "leased" receivers to dust underneath it, then relocated it back. She broke the TOS! Twice!


I have a theory about that. :grin:

I don't for a second believe it was designed to keep me from moving a receiver from the living room to the bedroom. I base this on the fact that you can buy a receiver from a brick and mortar. I make my purchase, take it home and following the supplied instructions install it and activate it. Obviously if we're to take that provision of the addendum literally, DirecTV would be violating its own rules by allowing retail sales of their receivers.

This leaves me wondering what possible purpose this could have. How about this for a hypothetical scenario?

I have DirecTV. A tech comes out and installs a new HR23 in my spare room and activates it. My daughter moves out and lives a few miles from me. I shut down the HR23 and take it to my daughter house. I hook it up to a dish I install and she now has DirecTV for the cost of the dish and $6/mo for programming.

I theorize that the provision against moving a receiver is intended to prevent this sort of theft from happening.

Hey, it's a theory. :grin:

At any rate it certainly is to prevent you from moving your receiver to a different room in your house.

Mike


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> In 13 years of practice, I've done enough to be confident that your interpretation is NOT a good statement of Tennessee law. And I would never suggest otherwise on an internet forum read by thousands of people a day from all over the country without some serious disclaimers; I guess if you're retired you don't have to worry about ethical complaints for the unlicensed practice of law and disbarment but I do.
> 
> And my final word on this topic to anyone who opens up a box secured by Torx security screws: be very, very careful of the potential consequences of what you're doing.


LL,

Just a thought. Let's say someone opens the case and replaces the drive with a superior drive without harming the unit. What are DirecTV's damages?

It's also important to note that this type of issue would most likely not be heard in court, but in an arbitration hearing as mandated by the agreement. Trust me...those arb hearings are not customer friendly.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> cartrivision said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that anybody has ever said that the lease agreement does not allow for any monetary penalty if the customer damages the leased equipment for any number of reasons (not limited to damage done by someone attempting to replace an internal disk).
> ...


Most likely nothing, unless the lessee was honest enough to confess that they think that they broke it while trying to replace the internal disk, but even without such a confession, I think that DirecTV would be acting reasonably if they charged the customer for returning a damaged/non-working DVR.

To be realistic though, absent any physically visible damage that was really obviously caused by the customer, I think that any such DVRs that are not working when returned by the customer are handled just the same way as any other return of a non-working DVR is handled... they send out a replacement at no cost to the customer and eat the repair/replacement cost. It's probably more cost effective to do that and have a happy high end customer who will gladly continue sending them more than a hundred dollars each month for many years to come than to spend the time and money that would be required try to determine which broken DVR returns are customer caused and then risk losing a customer by accusing them of being responsible for the fact that the equipment doesn't work if their assessment was incorrect.

If we _really_ want to be _clear_ though, this whole discussion keeps coming up over and over again not because of people like you who seem to have a reasonable interpretation of the lease agreement, but because of many people who have made certain assumptions and unreasonable interpretations of the purpose of the lease agreement and how it is likely to be enforced... and then state their misinterpretations and unfounded assumptions as if they were fact.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Most likely nothing, unless the lessee was honest enough to confess that they think that they broke it while trying to replace the internal disk, but even without such a confession, I think that DirecTV would be acting reasonably if they charged the customer for returning a damaged/non-working DVR.
> 
> To be realistic though, absent any physically visible damage that was really obviously caused by the customer, I think that any such DVRs that are not working when returned by the customer are handled just the same way as any other return of a non-working DVR is handled... they send out a replacement at no cost to the customer and eat the repair/replacement cost. It's probably more cost effective to do that and have a happy high end customer who will gladly continue sending them more than a hundred dollars each month for many years to come than to spend the time and money that would be required try to determine which broken DVR returns are customer caused and then risk losing a customer by accusing them of being responsible for the fact that the equipment doesn't work if their assessment was incorrect.


I can't argue with that. :shrug:

Clearly we can't condone such a thing. If a sub busts the receiver while playing where he doesn't belong and then decides plead ignorance...well there isn't much anyone can do about that. We have to hope people will be responsible and ethical.


> If we _really_ want to be _clear_ though, this whole discussion keeps coming up over and over again not because of people like you who seem to have a reasonable interpretation of the lease agreement, but because of many people who have made certain assumptions and unreasonable interpretations of the purpose of the lease agreement and how it is likely to be enforced... and then state their misinterpretations and unfounded assumptions as if they were fact.


With any luck we'll redirect those discussions here and keep other threads from spiraling into a free for all. :grin:

Mike


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Replacing the hard drive with any hard drive is altering and tampering. (How much power does it draw? What's its reliability? Is it inferior in performance to the HD being replaced?)

Replacing the hard drive with the same exact model is not altering. It is tampering. (Did you take ESD precautions? Were you careful to install it the same way as the old HD?)

Attaching the eSATA drive is not tampering, but is altering! (eSATA is not supported. You are altering the behavior of the DVR. If connecting the eSATA causes the DVR to stop working, you broke it. What happens if you connected an iPOD or USB charger or paper clip to the port? Or a bad eSATA drive?)

It's not illegal to do any of these things. No jail time is involved. You aren't forbidden from doing it, but D* has not given you permission to alter or modify the box.

So what happens if you're caught? State laws take over. Think "you break it, you buy it". D* can force you to pay for fixing the receiver, or force you to buy the receiver/DVR, and/or cancel your service. However, if you buy it the amount you already paid for the lease should be deducted from the amount you have to pay. And if you break the receiver that you're paying the extra $5/month for, that should count towards the total as well. This is where lawyers or small claims court usually get involved -- there is always a discrepancy here.

Have you read the "protection plan"? It really doesn't cover anything. It doesn't cover incidental damages, intentional damage, damage from product modifications or alterations, Acts of God, theft, etc. So if you own the unit and have the protection plan, too bad. You broke your own unit. D* doesn't have to fix it. 

D* MAY fix it anyway so as to avoid lawsuits. The first few times will be O.K. D* may start an investigation on you if you keep breaking units.


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> Replacing the hard drive with any hard drive is altering and tampering. (How much power does it draw? What's its reliability? Is it inferior in performance to the HD being replaced?)
> 
> Replacing the hard drive with the same exact model is not altering. It is tampering. (Did you take ESD precautions? Were you careful to install it the same way as the old HD?)
> 
> ...


ESata is not supported, in other words, you will not get any technical support for it, but it is authorized. So it is not tampering.

The rest of your statement I agree with.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> Replacing the hard drive with any hard drive is altering and tampering. (How much power does it draw? What's its reliability? Is it inferior in performance to the HD being replaced?)
> 
> Replacing the hard drive with the same exact model is not altering. It is tampering. (Did you take ESD precautions? Were you careful to install it the same way as the old HD?)
> 
> ...


Thank you for that fine legal analysis.

So you are saying that they will probably only let me break a few units before they start charging me? That's outrageous! How is someone supposed to replace their internal disk if DirecTV doesn't let them break 10 or 15 DVRs in the process?

I'll tell you what... if this is true, I think that I'm going to write a very strongly worded letter to somebody to complain about this outrageous policy. :listenup:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Darn it, I wish vBulletin had a sarcasm tag. That was a finely honed bit of wit, catrivision.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Darn it, I wish vBulletin had a sarcasm tag. That was a finely honed bit of wit, catrivision.


[sarcasm]The English language has existed quite well for many centuries without needing boucing smiley faces and animated signs to express sarcasm. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rudeney said:


> [sarcasm]The English language has existed quite well for many centuries without needing boucing smiley faces and animated signs to express sarcasm. [/sarcasm]


Part of sarcasm is based in body language and tone of voice. All of which is lost within the typed word.

Mike


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> Part of sarcasm is based in body language and tone of voice. All of which is lost within the typed word.
> 
> Mike


wELL, there you go! I even used the "[sarcasm]" tags and I still got taken seriously! :lol:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rudeney said:


> wELL, there you go! I even used the "[sarcasm]" tags and I still got taken seriously! :lol:


I guess I should have used your tags. I thought I was continuing the line without tags and smileys...oh well. :grin:

I'll stick to smileys. 

Mike


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> I guess I should have used your tags. I thought I was continuing the line without tags and smileys...oh well. :grin:
> 
> I'll stick to smileys.


:lol: I guess we both proved our own points!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

To find out what DIRECTV said specifically on the subject, read post #1 here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=165910


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

LOL! ... what would you EXPECT them (DirectV) to say? I think the ONLY way this issue could be settled was if someone who replaced their drive (and did NOT damage the box), then put it back to it's original state BEFORE returning it to DirecTV and upon return was charged for modifying it, took them to court.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but my guess, despite what their "lease agreement" states, is that DirecTV would lose.



Stuart Sweet said:


> To find out what DIRECTV said specifically on the subject, read post #1 here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=165910


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> LOL! ... what would you EXPECT them (DirectV) to say? I think the ONLY way this issue could be settled was if someone who replaced their drive (and did NOT damage the box), then put it back to it's original state BEFORE returning it to DirecTV and upon return was charged for modifying it, took them to court.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but my guess, despite what their "lease agreement" states, is that DirecTV would lose.


How would they lose? I'm pretty sure the contract wasn't written by a lawyer who runs ads during Jerry Springer. I'm sure if we had some contract law experts here, they could argue quite well for & against this contract.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> LOL! ... what would you EXPECT them (DirectV) to say? I think the ONLY way this issue could be settled was if someone who replaced their drive (and did NOT damage the box), then put it back to it's original state BEFORE returning it to DirecTV and upon return was charged for modifying it, took them to court.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but my guess, despite what their "lease agreement" states, is that DirecTV would lose.


You're right. They said exactly what we expected them to say but let's look at that for a second.

There has been plenty of discussion about whether or not "alter" or "tamper" really meant that you couldn't open the receiver and upgrade the hard drive. This series of emails (thanks Throckmorton ) definitively answers that question. DirecTV intended "alter" and "tamper" to apply to opening the receiver and replacing anything so that discussion has been put to bed. 

What I don't understand is why we have to able to pass a test of returning a working DVR and seeing if they'll do anything to you. It's already been stated, both here and several other threads, that the likelihood of getting into any trouble with a returned DVR that works is about nil. I don't even see how this could possibly be an issue. Unless you're just trying to justify upgrading you DVR and not have it be a violation of the lease addendum. There is no doubt about it. It is a violation. Is it enforceable if, in the end, the DVR works? Probably not but that doesn't change the circumstances of the addendum. It's a moot point. Your scenario won't cause DirecTV to investigate anything and thus won't settle anything. Besides, there aren't any consequences laid out for opening the receiver; only for not returning it or damaging it so if they did call you on it what are they going to do about it? 

Heck, when I first upgraded to HD, the tech who installed my HR20-700 pulled off one of the stickers just taking the darned thing out of the box. The edge of the sticker got stuck to the plastic bag and ripped right in half. They can't really use those stickers as the one and only test to determine if the box has been opened. Logic would seem to dictate that, if it works properly then it's nearly impossible for it to be a problem. If the box works, why would they even think to look into whether or not you opened the box. I'm sure they have plenty of work to do without adding to it...I'm just sayin' :grin:

With that said, in the big picture if it doesn't work or is otherwise damaged because you opened it, then you're gonna have a problem.

You're just trying to say that you can do the upgrade and they can't do anything about it. That may be true but only if everything goes as planned. What are you going to do if you get it back together and it doesn't work? You're kind of in a pickle then aren't you? 

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> How would they lose? I'm pretty sure the contract wasn't written by a lawyer who runs ads during Jerry Springer. I'm sure if we had some contract law experts here, they could argue quite well for & against this contract.


If the receiver works as it's supposed to, I honestly don't see them even checking into the possibility it's been upgraded and then restored. Just don't break it in the process. :grin:

Mike


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> If the receiver works as it's supposed to, I honestly don't see them even checking into the possibility it's been upgraded and then restored. Just don't break it in the process. :grin:
> 
> Mike


And if you do, don't come whining about it here, can't say no one told you so b4 hand....


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Yeah, I agree they might not notice...BUT...lol


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> How would they lose? I'm pretty sure the contract wasn't written by a lawyer who runs ads during Jerry Springer. I'm sure if we had some contract law experts here, they could argue quite well for & against this contract.


I can't think this would ever go to court.
"Say" I get caught.
DirecTV charges me $500.
Now what would my legal costs be to take this to court?
I'd guess it would be cheaper to pay the $500.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

harsh said:


> The manuals that come with the receivers make it clear that there are "no user-serviceable parts inside". To me this suggests that changing out parts is not something an end-user is authorized to do. Repairs must be authorized and performed by authorized persons. There is no implication that if you think you can pull it off that you are logically authorized to give it a go.


Actually the verbiage "no user servicable parts inside" is a legal or maybe a UL listing requirement for any device that has a non sheilded power supply. In a computer, the power supply is a box in and of itself and you can plug stuff in your computer all day long without subjecting yourslef to the chance of hitting 120v AC. In every satellite box I have ever seen, the PS is an open board right beside the main board and there are points where you can touch 120.

One more reason (not that them owning the box and not wanting it changed is not enough already) that they MUST tell the customer that they cannot open the box. If someone did and then got shocked, they would be on the hook legally for sure.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> Replacing the hard drive with any hard drive is altering and tampering. (How much power does it draw? What's its reliability? Is it inferior in performance to the HD being replaced?)
> 
> Replacing the hard drive with the same exact model is not altering. It is tampering. (Did you take ESD precautions? Were you careful to install it the same way as the old HD?)
> 
> ...


D* doesn't "fix" HRs. They use a contractor to "refurbish" the HRs. I've probably received more "refurbished" HRs than anyone on the forum and I've seen no evidence of "refurbishing" at all. If you're lucky, you get a "refurbished" receiver that someone turned in that was in perfect working order to begin with. That's the only chance anyone has of getting a "refurbished" HR that works.

I've talked to several lawyers about D*'s practices and they've all been eager to take a case to court. But, D* has been pretty good to me and I don't feel like going thru another court battle. I'd be interested to see how D* could possibly defend itself regarding the lack of actual "refurbishing" when they clearly state that you will either receive a new or "refurbished" HR if your HR fails.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Lee L said:


> Actually the verbiage "no user servicable parts inside" is a legal or maybe a UL listing requirement for any device that has a non sheilded power supply. In a computer, the power supply is a box in and of itself and you can plug stuff in your computer all day long without subjecting yourslef to the chance of hitting 120v AC. In every satellite box I have ever seen, the PS is an open board right beside the main board and there are points where you can touch 120.
> 
> One more reason (not that them owning the box and not wanting it changed is not enough already) that they MUST tell the customer that they cannot open the box. If someone did and then got shocked, they would be on the hook legally for sure.


I suppose someone would be stupid enough to leave the power cord plugged in while rooting around the insides of an HR. But, an unplugged HR poses no problems as far as I know. Leave the capacitor argument out, they are after the power supply and can easily be discharged if you're worried about them.

Rich


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> LOL! ... what would you EXPECT them (DirectV) to say? I think the ONLY way this issue could be settled was if someone who replaced their drive (and did NOT damage the box), then put it back to it's original state BEFORE returning it to DirecTV and upon return was charged for modifying it, took them to court.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but my guess, despite what their "lease agreement" states, is that DirecTV would lose.


Nope, they'd win. You still tampered with the internals of the box. There's no telling what damage you did. There's usually a sticker or a superglued screw that has to be removed before you can get into the box.

Now, the previous owner may have opened it, and you got their refurbished receiver. There's no way to tie the tampering to you. So as I said, the first few times they'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's not worth it. But what are the odds that you'd get 10 DVRs in a row where all previous owners have tampered with them?

Don't forget, they're also trying to prevent service theft or illegal copying of programs off the hard drive.

And I got that cartrivision was being sarcastic. No special tag needed. 

I used to work for product returns. Once an idiot returned a product under warranty because the top broke. There were deep grooves right where you had to insert a screwdriver to pop off the top (he didn't have the right tool). He also forgot to take off the wires he had soldered on to the ASIC. Those wires were in a very unique location. We called the police and reported potential service theft. We had to take pictures of everything, and my manger and his manager were there watching me do it. He also managed to damage the product due to his poor soldering. We refused his warranty. He got mad. I can't say what happened after that, except that it got really messy.

So don't open the box if it doesn't belong to you. Another way to look at it is I if rented a car from you. I replaced the engine with a different one, then I replaced the original engine before returning it. Although I said I was careful, I also admit I don't have much experience replacing engines, and I don't have all the proper tools. I also didn't take all the necessary precautions. But I assure you that the car is exactly the same. Wouldn't you be mad at me? Wouldn't you at least pay to have a mechanic check the car out for damage? And who should pay for that mechanic?


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

rich584 said:


> D* doesn't "fix" HRs. They use a contractor to "refurbish" the HRs.
> 
> I've talked to several lawyers about D*'s practices and they've all been eager to take a case to court. But, D* has been pretty good to me and I don't feel like going thru another court battle. I'd be interested to see how D* could possibly defend itself regarding the lack of actual "refurbishing" when they clearly state that you will either receive a new or "refurbished" HR if your HR fails.
> 
> Rich


The third-party repair company did not sign the customer lease agreement. You did. They signed a completely different agreement which authorizes them to make repairs. Your lease agreement is with D*, not the third party repair shop. And it does not authorize you to make repairs.

Having said that, the third party is doing a lousy job at it.

Lawyers are always eager to go to court. That's how they make money. I don't agree with many of D*'s practices, but this specific one is pretty fair and is standard.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Absolutely correct .... we'll probably never know. That was my point which is why all this speculation and guessing in this thread is useless.

The only thing we know for sure is we're not SUPPOSED to do it and "if you break it you own it."



veryoldschool said:


> I can't think this would ever go to court.
> "Say" I get caught.
> DirecTV charges me $500.
> Now what would my legal costs be to take this to court?
> I'd guess it would be cheaper to pay the $500.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

You mean "You THINK they would/should win." You don't KNOW any more then me or anyone else. When someone takes it to court please let me know the results.  Contracts are voided in courts all the time for many reasons.



bobcamp1 said:


> Nope, they'd win. You still tampered with the internals of the box. There's no telling what damage you did. There's usually a sticker or a superglued screw that has to be removed before you can get into the box.
> 
> Now, the previous owner may have opened it, and you got their refurbished receiver. There's no way to tie the tampering to you. So as I said, the first few times they'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's not worth it. But what are the odds that you'd get 10 DVRs in a row where all previous owners have tampered with them?
> 
> ...


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Sorry, I have to call BS on that story. Did the police arrest him for "illegal soldering." :lol: You could certainly refuse his warranty or civilly sue him for damaging your property if he refuses to pay for it but other then that, sorry, that story sounds a bit unbelievable.



bobcamp1 said:


> I used to work for product returns. Once an idiot returned a product under warranty because the top broke. There were deep grooves right where you had to insert a screwdriver to pop off the top (he didn't have the right tool). He also forgot to take off the wires he had soldered on to the ASIC. Those wires were in a very unique location. We called the police and reported potential service theft. We had to take pictures of everything, and my manger and his manager were there watching me do it. He also managed to damage the product due to his poor soldering. We refused his warranty. He got mad. I can't say what happened after that, except that it got really messy.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I can't think this would ever go to court.
> "Say" I get caught.
> DirecTV charges me $500.
> Now what would my legal costs be to take this to court?
> I'd guess it would be cheaper to pay the $500.


You left out a step in that hypothetical scenario....


Customer refuses to pay any $$$ whatsoever because nowhere in the lease agreement does it provide for monetary penalties for simply not complying with the terms of the lease agreememt... it only spells out a $$$ penalty/charge for failing to return a leased DVR or receiver [presumably in working condition] after it has been deactivated.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Sorry, I have to call BS on that story. Did the police arrest him for "illegal soldering." :lol: You could certainly refuse his warranty or civilly sue him for damaging your property if he refuses to pay for it but other then that, sorry, that story sounds a bit unbelievable.


I thought he was trying to say they reported this person for stealing service of some type, TV maybe and not necessarily because of the hardware mods...maybe I got it wrong. :scratch:

Mike


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Either way, it's a HUGE stretch. I seriously doubt that a company (seemingly) selling a subscription service of some type is going to authorize the "product returns guy" to call the cops on someone for "theft of service" or even "illegal soldering." I would think that would have to come from way high up in the ivory tower legal department.

I can see the picture: Guy walks in to a cable/sat company and returns his cable box. "Returns Guy" says "Sir, gotta open this box to check it out, looks like it was tampered with." "Returns Guy" takes out his toolkit and says "Sir, I must inform you, it seems like you've tampered with this box and not only can I not replace it under your warranty but I must ask you to get on your hands an knees so I can tie-wrap you to the desk leg until the local police arrive. You are under suspicion of theft-of-service. Don't leave the premises or I'll have to solder you to the wall. :eek2: :lol:



MicroBeta said:


> I thought he was trying to say they reported this person for stealing service of some type, TV maybe and not necessarily because of the hardware mods...maybe I got it wrong. :scratch:
> 
> Mike


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TBlazer07 said:


> Either way, it's a HUGE stretch. I seriously doubt that a company (seemingly) selling a subscription service of some type is going to authorize the "product returns guy" to call the cops on someone for "theft of service" or even "illegal soldering." I would think that would have to come from way high up in the ivory tower legal department.
> 
> I can see the picture: Guy walks in to a cable/sat company and returns his cable box. "Returns Guy" says "Sir, gotta open this box to check it out, looks like it was tampered with." "Returns Guy" takes out his toolkit and says "Sir, I must inform you, it seems like you've tampered with this box and not only can I not replace it under your warranty but I must ask you to get on your hands an knees so I can tie-wrap you to the desk leg until the local police arrive. You are under suspicion of theft-of-service. Don't leave the premises or I'll have to solder you to the wall. :eek2: :lol:


Or maybe the hack job was so obvious (remember the cover was rather damaged...) that it was pretty easy to tell.

Why are you BS'ing on this guy?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> You left out a step in that hypothetical scenario....
> 
> 
> Customer refuses to pay any $$$ whatsoever because nowhere in the lease agreement does it provide for monetary penalties for simply not complying with the terms of the lease agreememt... it only spells out a $$$ penalty/charge for failing to return a leased DVR or receiver [presumably in working condition] after it has been deactivated.


1. Highly doubtful this would ever go to court as there is an arbitration clause in the DirecTV agreement.

2. DirecTV is going to have to show damages in order to collect something. It doesn't appear they have anything listed in the agreement. What are their damages if someone replaces a 320GB drive with a superior 1TB drive?


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Actually I think you got that reversed. His anecdote (as Mr Spock would say) didn't compute. 


Tom Robertson said:


> Why are you BS'ing on this guy?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

I wasn't disputing the possible obvious hack job, I dispute the fact he called the police to bust the guy for "possible" theft of service.


Tom Robertson said:


> Or maybe the hack job was so obvious (remember the cover was rather damaged...) that it was pretty easy to tell.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> I wasn't disputing the possible obvious hack job, I dispute the fact he called the police to bust the guy for "possible" theft of service.


Why? You don't have any reason to suspect otherwise.

There are acutally quite a few cases of theft of services that go to court. Heck, you can find lawyers who advertise to defend people in such cases.

A two minute google search showed plenty of current cases so why would it be hard to believe?

Mike


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> The third-party repair company did not sign the customer lease agreement. You did. They signed a completely different agreement which authorizes them to make repairs. Your lease agreement is with D*, not the third party repair shop. And it does not authorize you to make repairs.


Where did you get the idea that I was making repairs? Did you actually infer that from my post? Do you understand how contracting works? Have you got any experience in that field? I do. And D* is responsible for any injuries incurred by that contractor or for any issues that occur because of that contractor. Their lack of oversight is appalling.



> Having said that, the third party is doing a lousy job at it.


Contractors are always eager to sign contracts. That's how they make their money. Without oversight, how can we expect to get "refurbished" units that are actually refurbished?



> Lawyers are always eager to go to court. That's how they make money.


I just used your wording to make a point. I understand how lawyers make their money. I don't like going to court and I avoid it if I can, but sometimes that's the only way to get satisfaction.



> I don't agree with many of D*'s practices, but this specific one is pretty fair and is standard.


And yet they are getting sued at this moment by several people and groups.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TBlazer07 said:


> I wasn't disputing the possible obvious hack job, I dispute the fact he called the police to bust the guy for "possible" theft of service.


Then you would be wrong. There might even be a bounty for calling fraud cases. (by the service provider, not the police.)

(And remember, this was with the manager's approval)

I'm not sure why you have such doubts, I've seen many cases of set top box hacking get pulled into court.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> I used to work for product returns. Once an idiot returned a product under warranty because the top broke. There were deep grooves right where you had to insert a screwdriver to pop off the top (he didn't have the right tool). He also forgot to take off the wires he had soldered on to the ASIC. Those wires were in a very unique location. We called the police and reported potential service theft. We had to take pictures of everything, and my manger and his manager were there watching me do it. He also managed to damage the product due to his poor soldering. We refused his warranty. He got mad. I can't say what happened after that, except that it got really messy.


You called the police for that? I just got thru asking a detective what he'd do if someone like you called him and reported what you said you reported and he laughed. First, was it in the local police jurisdiction? Or was it from another state? Hard to believe it just happened to be a customer in the town you were located in. Who'd you call the Warranty Police? I can understand refusing to honor the warranty, but calling the cops because a warranty was broken? C'mon.



> So don't open the box if it doesn't belong to you. Another way to look at it is I if rented a car from you. I replaced the engine with a different one, then I replaced the original engine before returning it. Although I said I was careful, I also admit I don't have much experience replacing engines, and I don't have all the proper tools. I also didn't take all the necessary precautions. But I assure you that the car is exactly the same. Wouldn't you be mad at me? Wouldn't you at least pay to have a mechanic check the car out for damage? And who should pay for that mechanic?


Do you seriously think that comparing a $50,000 leased car to a $500 leased DVR is a fair comparison? Who in their right mind would drop another motor in a leased car? That's not what people are talking about when they compare leasing a car to leasing an HR. They're talking about sound systems and little things like that. Anybody that can put a sound system in a car can take it out and you won't see the difference. I've done that. You couldn't tell it was done.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

And on top of which, you don't want to be the one person guilty of only minor hacking, that DIRECTV decides to make an example of. It could happen.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> And on top of which, you don't want to be the one person guilty of only minor hacking, that DIRECTV decides to make an example of. It could happen.


Has the definition of "hacking" changed too? When the HU stream was still going on, I thought that was hacking. What can you do to an HR that fits that model?

Rich


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

You're not understanding what I am stating (or not reading all the replies).

I have no doubt there have been theft of service busts. I have read about them MANY times and seen them on the news.

Other then sellers of hacked equipment, most individual user cases are settled out of court for damages just like the music industry. I've never READ ABOUT (although I'm sure it has happened somewhere) of some poor shmuck ending up in jail for stealing cable from his neighbor. As you state they are by the service provider AFTER having virtually indisputable evidence and USUALLY for sellers of equipment.

The post in question stated the "returns guy" took pictures of the box in question and called the cops because the box was obviously damaged and he determined it "MIGHT" be theft of service. Something like that has to go thru the company lawyers. Warehouse or front desk service people don't determine (or accuse) customers of theft of service. The financial risks are enormous.

I doubt the specific story that was told by the poster, not whether people can get busted for theft of service.



Tom Robertson said:


> Then you would be wrong. There might even be a bounty for calling fraud cases. (by the service provider, not the police.)
> 
> (And remember, this was with the manager's approval)
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TBlazer07 said:


> You're not understanding what I am stating (or not reading all the replies).
> 
> I have no doubt there have been theft of service busts. I have read about them MANY times and seen them on the news.
> 
> ...


Sounded like the "returns guy" called his manager (who also called his manager.) One of them called the police. Why do you have so many problems with that?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

He claims he called the cops because he THOUGHT, because of the internal wiring in the box the guy "forgot to remove", the guy was stealing service so he called in the fuzz and had the customer arrested. 1-800-LAWSUIT for the guy and 1-800-UNEMPLOYMENT for not going through proper channels.

One of my neighbors is an Assistant DA in our county. I rarely see the guy but when I do I want to ask if there is a state law against poor soldering in a leased box.



rich584 said:


> You called the police for that? I just got thru asking a detective what he'd do if someone like you called him and reported what you said you reported and he laughed. First, was it in the local police jurisdiction? Or was it from another state? Hard to believe it just happened to be a customer in the town you were located in. Who'd you call the Warranty Police? I can understand refusing to honor the warranty, but calling the cops because a warranty was broken? C'mon.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TBlazer07 said:


> He claims he called the cops because he THOUGHT, because of the internal wiring in the box the guy "forgot to remove", the guy was stealing service so he called in the fuzz and had the customer arrested. 1-800-LAWSUIT for the guy and 1-800-UNEMPLOYMENT for not going through proper channels.
> 
> One of my neighbors is an Assistant DA in our county. I rarely see the guy but when I do I want to ask if there is a state law against poor soldering in a leased box.


I'm sure there isn't a soldering law. You might even know that already....

But there is law against theft of service...

We're strayed far enough and long enough from the DIRECTV topic, so I'm calling :backtotop

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Yes we do.

And the reason I have problems with his story is just because the guy supposedly soldered wires in box there was absolutely no proof of theft of service that would be worth risking a major lawsuit by having the customer returning the device arrested. Besides, what did he do, tie the customer to the water pipe to hold him until the fuzz arrived?



Tom Robertson said:


> Sounded like the "returns guy" called his manager (who also called his manager.) One of them called the police. Why do you have so many problems with that?
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> ...


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Sounded like the "returns guy" called his manager (who also called his manager.) One of them called the police. Why do you have so many problems with that?
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> ...


The whole story sounds pretty fishy to me too. If anyone from a cable company called the police and asked them to somehow handle a theft of cable service complaint, it's very likely that the police would politely tell them in so many words that there was nothing that they could do.

It's kind of like in the movie Basic Instinct when the police tell Catherine Tramell that she can't smoke as she lights up in the police station while they question her about a murder. She continues smoking and says, "What are you going to do, arrest me for smoking?".

There are things that are against the law that the police simply won't get involved in.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Yes we do.
> 
> And the reason I have problems with his story is just because the guy supposedly soldered wires in box there was absolutely no proof of theft of service that would be worth risking a major lawsuit by having the customer returning the device arrested. Besides, what did he do, tie the customer to the water pipe to hold him until the fuzz arrived?


It would if the wires were soldered to some very specific spots (google it and you can find out what I'm talking about) then the they can be for only one purpose.

Not only that but google will show you that theft of services is becoming a big deal and it's being prosecuted.

The elements of the story are easily checked and they do happen. Now why is his story a fabrication?

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> The whole story sounds pretty fishy to me too. If anyone from a cable company called the police and asked them to somehow handle a theft of cable service complaint, it's very likely that the police would politely tell them in so many words that there was nothing that they could do.
> 
> It's kind of like in the movie Basic Instinct when the police tell Catherine Tramell that she can't smoke as she lights up in the police station while they question her about a murder. She continues smoking and says, "What are you going to do, arrest me for smoking?".
> 
> There are things that are against the law that the police simply won't get involved in.


Then there wouldn't be so many ads by defense lawyers who have departments to defend clients for theft of services.

If lawyers are advertising for it then there must be a bunch of money to made from it...I'm just sayin' :grin:

In the face of all of this it isn't out of the realm of possibility for DirecTV to go after someone who they think tampered with their DVR. Like I've said before, I don't really seeing it being a problem if the receiver has it's original parts and works but who knows.

Mike


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> The whole story sounds pretty fishy to me too. If anyone from a cable company called the police and asked them to somehow handle a theft of cable service complaint, it's very likely that the police would politely tell them in so many words that there was nothing that they could do.
> 
> There are things that are against the law that the police simply won't get involved in.


With domestic terrorism as a threat nowadays and internet perverts out there, theft of services is a great avenue to start investigating someone. When these criminals want to hide their tracks, they will specifically use theft of services in order to cover their tracks. I've come across a few cars/vans with guys in them sitting on a residential street they have no business being on trying what appears to be searching for unsecure wireless routers so they can jump on the internet.

- Merg


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> Then there wouldn't be so many ads by defense lawyers who have departments to defend clients for theft of services.
> 
> If lawyers are advertising for it then there must be a bunch of money to made from it...I'm just sayin' :grin:
> 
> ...


You are arguing against something that nobody said. I have no doubt that tens of thousands of people have been accused of theft of service and have hired lawyers to defend themselves, and yet none of those cases started by the cable or satellite company "calling the police" on the thief. All I and others here have said was that the specific story a few posts back about the cable guy who handled cable box returns and/or his manager calling the police on a suspected cable thief didn't sound believable.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> You are arguing against something that nobody said. I have no doubt that tens of thousands of people have been accused of theft of service and have hired lawyers to defend themselves, and yet none of those cases started by the cable or satellite company "calling the police" on the thief. All I and others here have said was that the specific story a few posts back about the cable guy who handled cable box returns and/or his manager calling the police on a suspected cable thief didn't sound believable.


My point was that the police are not likely blowing of theft of services. Nothing beyond that.

Mike


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Yes, I know all about all that stuff. You're missing my entire point so let's just drop it because this will go on forever and I will just keep repeating myself over and over.



MicroBeta said:


> It would if the wires were soldered to some very specific spots (google it and you can find out what I'm talking about) then the they can be for only one purpose.
> 
> Not only that but google will show you that theft of services is becoming a big deal and it's being prosecuted.
> 
> ...


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Yes we do.
> 
> And the reason I have problems with his story is just because the guy supposedly soldered wires in box there was absolutely no proof of theft of service that would be worth risking a major lawsuit by having the customer returning the device arrested. Besides, what did he do, tie the customer to the water pipe to hold him until the fuzz arrived?


He returned it to the service provider, who in turn sent it to my company (the manufacturer) with a "special" note, who in turn gave it to my manager, who in turn put it on my desk *without *that "special" note, but another that just said "call me after you look at it." When I got to looking at it, I immediately determined the product had been tampered with. I called my manager and his manager joined me, which was suspicious. I then asked, "would you also like me to determine HOW it was tampered?", and they both said yes.

After a few hours of asking the designers and looking up schematics, it was quite clear it was an attempt for service theft. They weren't trying to upgrade RAM or add a feature or anything like that -- the wires weren't in the right spots for that. I typed that up in a white paper per my manager's request, and then after I was finished my manager told me about the "special" note from the service provider. He also said it was a legal matter at that point, and that the police would get involved. And I can't tell you what happened after that, except that the police did get involved.

Personal views:
I assume the service provider knew where the person lived, and if not, that's what the police are for. There's no chaining anybody to a pipe LOL, this all took several weeks to develop. I think the customer screwed up -- no one in their right mind would send a product back like that. He probably meant to send back his "personal use" product and sent back that one by mistake.

I assume that my report was forwarded to the service provider as well as the police and/or the DA's office, though I was never contacted about it again.

It would have taken a lot of reverse engineering to pull it off. I wonder if there wasn't some insider information involved as well.

This only happened on this one return. For all of the other returns, it was simply a case of figuring out whether to fix it or scrap it. And determining how we could have less returns in the future. Hence my previous six sigma comments over the past years.

That's all in the past. The products I design now aren't for typical consumers. And I can't tell you about them, either. :grin:


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> You are arguing against something that nobody said. I have no doubt that tens of thousands of people have been accused of theft of service and have hired lawyers to defend themselves, and yet none of those cases started by the cable or satellite company "calling the police" on the thief. All I and others here have said was that the specific story a few posts back about the cable guy who handled cable box returns and/or his manager calling the police on a suspected cable thief didn't sound believable.


Who said anything about cable? I sure didn't.

You mean to tell me that the service providers don't track service theft or suspicious activity? Who initiates the investigations, then?

I assume that someone from the DA's office would get involved, along with the police, for any kind of theft. That's how it happens on the Law and Order shows anyway.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> You mean to tell me that the service providers don't track service theft or suspicious activity?


I once worked for a company that [among other things] made detection systems for a service provider. The equipment was mounted on some of their trucks. They would drive around the service area and map users & match account addresses. 
So, yes "they care".


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> Who said anything about cable? I sure didn't.


I did, as did other people, when someone claimed that they called the police on someone who was suspected of stealing cable services, and we said that his story didn't sound believable.



> You mean to tell me that the service providers don't track service theft or suspicious activity?


No I don't mean to tell you that, since I never said that they don't. I would think that they all do.



> Who initiates the investigations, then?


See above.



> I assume that someone from the DA's office would get involved, along with the police, for any kind of theft. That's how it happens on the Law and Order shows anyway.


The DA? Sure. Perhaps even the State AG's office, and in some of the bigger DirecTV cases, I think that even the FBI was involved, but the local police? I kinda doubt it.

This is all getting terribly OT since it has gone off on a tangent from the thread topic of DirecTV's TOS, but that sort of started when someone told a story about calling the police on a suspected cable thief.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

MicroBeta said:


> Let's see if we can keep this on civil.


Hmmmm


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I did, as did other people, when someone claimed that they called the police on someone who was suspected of stealing cable services, and we said that his story didn't sound believable.
> 
> No I don't mean to tell you that, since I never said that they don't. I would think that they all do.
> 
> ...


The local police get involved in theft of services all the time. The cases are prosecuted in the county where the suspected theft is occurring. I speak from experience. I have worked with the D* fraud Investigators on numerous occassions. Especially back when access card fraud was a big problem.

I have no doubt Bobcamp1's story is legitimate.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

wildbill129 said:


> The local police get involved in theft of services all the time. The cases are prosecuted in the county where the suspected theft is occurring. I speak from experience. I have worked with the D* fraud Investigators on numerous occassions. Especially back when access card fraud was a big problem.
> 
> I have no doubt Bobcamp1's story is legitimate.


Actually it's the FBI that handles DBS as it's across state lines for broadcasting. Cable would probably fall under the same jurisdiction as it's a federal crime not state due to FCC regulations. I'm sure someone could do a ton of research if they wanted but every story I've read about Dish or DirecTV has always included the FBI doing the search and seizure.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I once worked for a company that [among other things] made detection systems for a service provider. The equipment was mounted on some of their trucks. They would drive around the service area and map users & match account addresses.
> So, yes "they care".


I remember back in the early '70s that the phone companies were doing something like that. All they had to do was make a call to a number that they suspected had more phones than the customer was supposed to have and read the amperage draw when the phones rang. Most people got wise to that and disconnected the ringers, which, if I recall correctly were pretty rudimentary bells with a clapper between them. I think they could also measure resistance by some method, but ringing the bells was the preferred method.

Rich


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Ah yes, the good old days of regulated phone service!


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Most people got wise to that and disconnected the ringers, which, if I recall correctly were pretty rudimentary bells with a clapper between them. I think they could also measure resistance by some method, but ringing the bells was the preferred method.
> 
> Rich


I still have one of those phones. My kids asked me the other day if it was really a phone. This must be a sign that you're getting old....

I really can't comment any more on all the assumptions that people have made about my story. Many of them are wrong. But you know what they say about the word "assume"....

Anyway, back to the OT. The box isn't yours. There aren't any user-serviceable parts in there, even though there is one part that appears to be extremely user-serviceable. Good for them and you, they made many of the parts off-the-shelf items to reduce development time and cost. But the box itself really wasn't made to be user-serviceable. The parts aren't easily removable, dangerous voltages might be present, the parts around the hard drive may be extremely sensitive to ESD, you might break it by accident, etc.

The manufacturer doesn't want you to open the box. The owner of the box clearly doesn't want you to open the box. So don't open the box. The whole point of leased equipment is that you can just ship it back when it breaks or when it becomes obsolete and they simply send you a new one. (With D*, there are caveats to this, but that's what's supposed to happen).

Plus, do you really want to give D* a reason to charge you a large fee? Aren't other people complaining about how D* is wrongly charging them ETFs or wrongly renewing the lease making them subject to ETFs?


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Here's what I don't understand. If someone is over 18 don't you feel they can take responsibility and make that decision on their own? If they are aware of the risk and willing to suffer the consequences why should you ("generic" you, not YOU personally) care so much?

It seems everyone here who so vehemently quotes the DirecTV gospel takes it very personally when someone even suggests opening the box yet there is a huge thread posted somewhere detailing on how to open the box and copy between drives. It's pretty obvious that those who do this are aware they're "not 'sposed to" but yet every time someone mentions it holy hell breaks lose with all the preachers coming out of the woodwork.

With that said, there still hasn't been a single posted message from anyone stating they got charged for returning a DVR that was upgraded and put back to normal WORKING ORDER before returning it (or for that matter even being charged for one they blew up). You would think over all these years you might see at least one of those messages posted from someone who was angry because he was charged $700 for a box he returned in perfect working order except for a missing label. Speaking of labels .... of my 4 HD-DVR's only ONE came with a label and that label was never fully "stuck" on. They all have been recons but 3 of them are owned.



bobcamp1 said:


> The manufacturer doesn't want you to open the box. The owner of the box clearly doesn't want you to open the box. So don't open the box.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

"REN"


rich584 said:


> I remember back in the early '70s that the phone companies were doing something like that. All they had to do was make a call to a number that they suspected had more phones than the customer was supposed to have and read the amperage draw when the phones rang. Most people got wise to that and disconnected the ringers, which, if I recall correctly were pretty rudimentary bells with a clapper between them. I think they could also measure resistance by some method, but ringing the bells was the preferred method.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> I still have one of those phones. My kids asked me the other day if it was really a phone. This must be a sign that you're getting old....
> 
> I really can't comment any more on all the assumptions that people have made about my story. Many of them are wrong. But you know what they say about the word "assume"....
> 
> ...


Actually, I do "own" three 20-700s. Before I started buying them, I did call D* and ask them what limitations were put on "owned" HRs. Told them all I wanted to do was put larger internals in them. No problem.

I have no idea what a person could do with the circuitry since I don't have a set of schematics and would be totally lost, much as I am with the new cars. I did take Mike's advice and Googled "DirecTv +theft of services". Rather shocking results. But all the fines (extremely high fines) seemed to be levied at the Federal level. I was also surprised at the many websites that advertised ways to hack (I mean that term in the way it was originally meant to be used) different provider's receivers. Can't help but wonder how they manage to stay active.

My family is sort of a law and order family. My mother was a police officer, my son is a Homicide/Robbery detective and my nephew holds a position at a federal level that I don't think I should say any more about than that. For me to get involved in something such as theft of services would be terribly embarrassing to them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> "REN"


I gather you don't know how I feel about acronyms. :lol: I have no idea what a "REN" is.

To all you folks who wonder why I don't like acronyms, spend a few years in the Navy and you'll understand.

Rich


----------



## wildbill129 (Dec 22, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> Actually it's the FBI that handles DBS as it's across state lines for broadcasting. Cable would probably fall under the same jurisdiction as it's a federal crime not state due to FCC regulations. I'm sure someone could do a ton of research if they wanted but every story I've read about Dish or DirecTV has always included the FBI doing the search and seizure.


Actually, it's both. I've worked DBS theft cases and I am local. The feds will only get involved in large scale theft operations that cross many states. As I said before, the case is prosecuted based on the location of the suspect. The fact that the satellite broadcasts across state lines has nothing to with it.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I gather you don't know how I feel about acronyms. :lol: I have no idea what a "REN" is.
> 
> To all you folks who wonder why I don't like acronyms, spend a few years in the Navy and you'll understand.
> 
> Rich


REN = Ringer Equivalency Number. It's based on the current draw of a phone's ringer compared to a "standard" electromagnetic ringers from one of those old 1960's phones.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

LOL ... you mentioned it so I thought you know. 

From way back when : http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov99/941421680.Eg.r.html



rich584 said:


> I gather you don't know how I feel about acronyms. :lol: I have no idea what a "REN" is.
> 
> To all you folks who wonder why I don't like acronyms, spend a few years in the Navy and you'll understand.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rudeney said:


> REN = Ringer Equivalency Number. It's based on the current draw of a phone's ringer compared to a "standard" electromagnetic ringers from one of those old 1960's phones.


So in simple terms, they were measuring that amperage draw. I do seem to remember another method they used regarding resistance. Not sure how that worked, was a long time ago.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> LOL ... you mentioned it so I thought you know.


Knew what they were measuring, didn't know what it was called. Kinda surprised at the voltages listed. Used to measure about 78VAC when the phone rang. Got shocked a lot of times by those phones. That was before they started using plugs and were hard wired to a small junction box. Easier to take the shock than undo the wiring. :lol:

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rich584 said:


> So in simple terms, they were measuring that amperage draw.


Amperage draw is a little too simple. REN is based on the _impedance_ of the ringing phone as we're in the alternating current domain with ringers.

1 bell = 6.93K resistor + 8µF capacitor


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> Amperage draw is a little too simple. REN is based on the _impedance_ of the ringing phone as we're in the alternating current domain with ringers.
> 
> 1 bell = 6.93K resistor + 8µF capacitor


Are you trying to say that amperage is not part of AC? Or are you confusing resistive circuitry with inductive circuitry?

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rich584 said:


> Are you trying to say that amperage is not part of AC? Or are you confusing resistive circuitry with inductive circuitry?


I'm saying that there is more than just a resistance component to a ringing circuit. In this case, capacitance.

One purpose of using a capacitor in the ringing circuit is that a cap doesn't pass DC; something that a resistor does in a limited and predictable way and an inductor does quite efficiently.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> I'm saying that there is more than just a resistance component to a ringing circuit. In this case, capacitance.
> 
> One purpose of using a capacitor in the ringing circuit is that a cap doesn't pass DC; something that a resistor does in a limited and predictable way and an inductor does quite efficiently.


Not to be impolite, I've always enjoyed your forays into this forum (I seem to be alone in that), but I've spent well over 50 years playing with electricity and it's beginning to bore me. So I'll say this and hope it satisfies you. You're right. 

Rich


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Folks, let's get back to the topic at hand, please. Discussion of phone hacking is not allowed on this forum and I've only allowed it so far because, to be honest, the discussion would only help you if your local exchange is still using equipment from 1965.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Actually, I do "own" three 20-700s. Before I started buying them, I did call D* and ask them what limitations were put on "owned" HRs. Told them all I wanted to do was put larger internals in them. No problem.
> 
> Rich


So you think an oral shrug by a CSR supersedes a signed written agreement? Don't people complain that one CSR says one thing and a different CSR says the opposite?

If you own it, you can do whatever you want within reason. If you lease it, you can't do anything without their written permission.

For example, if you own it, you can paint it. You can upgrade the hard drive. You can put in a fan. You can put in a wireless adapter. You can even upgrade the RAM. It's yours.

If you lease it, could you even paint it? It doesn't even involve opening the box (but I would remove the outside to avoid having paint drip on the inside). If you returned it to D* as a bright cherry red, would they mind? If you returned it with a large ding or scratch, but it otherwise worked fine, is that OK? What if you painted back to a close-but-not-quite original color?

Now let's say you receive one of these units. The hard drive is loud, or there is a large scratch on the front, or it's painted bright red. Or the paint is peeling off. But it works. Wouldn't you call D* up and return it? And what would D* do with it once they got it back?

D* has all kinds of weird bizarre practices that will eventually get them into trouble. This isn't one of them. This is pretty standard. I'm not saying you can go to jail for replacing the hard drive. They probably won't even catch you. But if you get caught, it does violate your lease agreement and your warranty (if the unit is owned). Maybe D* will decide to do nothing, or maybe you'll pay for the full price, or maybe they'll suspend your service. But you've given D* the opportunity to screw you over. And I don't think you'll get much relief in arbitration.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> So you think an oral shrug by a CSR supersedes a signed written agreement? Don't people complain that one CSR says one thing and a different CSR says the opposite?
> 
> If you own it, you can do whatever you want within reason. If you lease it, you can't do anything without their written permission.
> 
> ...


A couple of those are _really_ interesting questions.

Just what constitutes damage and does that damage? What damage would trigger the fee? :scratchin

I got nothin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> So you think an oral shrug by a CSR supersedes a signed written agreement? Don't people complain that one CSR says one thing and a different CSR says the opposite?


I didn't call a normal CSR, I called the proper people and three of my HRs are owned and show up on my bill as "additional receivers". After all this time do you think I trust the run of the mill CSRs?

Rich


----------



## Ashtonian (Jan 31, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I didn't call a normal CSR, I called the proper people and three of my HRs are owned and show up on my bill as "additional receivers". After all this time do you think I trust the run of the mill CSRs?
> 
> Rich


My recordings are playing back like a scratched DVD
jerky and stopping and starting again.

Will getting an external eSATA solve the problem because it disables the internal drive?

P.S. The Yankees to win on Saturday


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Ashtonian said:


> My recordings are playing back like a scratched DVD
> jerky and stopping and starting again.
> 
> Will getting an external eSATA solve the problem because it disables the internal drive?


If your problem is in your internal HDD, an eSATA would solve your problem. Easiest way to know is to buy one at a place with a liberal return policy.

I kinda doubt that it's the internal drive. Before you do anything, I'd suggest pulling the plug on your HR/s for about 12 hours or as long as you can. That cleared up similar problems on all six of my 20-700s.



> P.S. The Yankees to win on Saturday


I'm not saying a word about the game tonight, but I'm a Jets fan and this is almost exactly what I go thru every year. But, at least I don't get physically ill when the Jets lose. On the other hand...

Rich


----------

