Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > DirecTV, eBay, and Intellectual Property

DirecTV, eBay, and Intellectual Property
Thread Tools
iLikebeer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 07:26 PM
 
Last month I moved into a new apartment to save money. I can't have a satellite dish here, so I cancelled my DirecTV. I BOUGHT both of my receivers from Best Buy, one is HD DVR and the other is just HD. I was going to keep them for when I move again. I moved to a smaller place and have been trying to get rid of a lot of stuff. I saw on eBay that H20 HD receivers were going for $60-$100. There just happens to be an eBay power seller store within walking distance of my place. I took it down there and he put it on eBay for a 35% fee. I don't mind not having to deal with all the shipping and paypal for a fee.

Anyway, I was watching the auction, and it was deleted by ebay. I went in yesterday on the way to work and he showed me an email from ebay saying it was taken down for IP purposes. If he tried to put it up again, his account would be suspended. The email said it protects against counterfeit merchandise and piracy, but this was a bought receiver, no different than reselling a stereo or dvd player. How in the world can DirecTV and ebay rationalize this other than to say companies will get away with what they can and ebay doesn't want to deal with the hassle?

He ended up putting it on Craigslist, so we'll see how that goes. I'm just irritated at Directv, I don't think I'll ever deal with them again. They've made thousands on me with NFL Sunday ticket Superfan, NHL center ice, HD, and numerous packages. Then they nickel and dime you on a resell. I think I'll be getting NHL and NFL online from now on.
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 08:06 PM
 
Well, these corporations can afford to pay to re-write IP law, and you can't. That's the reality.
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 08:54 PM
 
even if you buy a receiver from best buy, etc...read the fine print. DirectTV still owns it. there was a pretty heated discussion about this on http://www.satelliteguys.us/ awhile back. i didn't keep up with the thread but when closing the account, even thought the OP bought ALL the boxes; if he didn't return them to DirectTV he was going to get a huge fee tacked on to his account.

edit1: hmm, maybe it was dish before they went to rental only. nevermind

edit 2: found what i was looking for. purchased directtv receivers that are below list price are subsidezed by directtv. meaning the retailer was paid from directtv. those receivers are then property of directtv and must be returned when closing the account.

reason i brought this up is that a) be careful trying to sell it because directtv may be wanting it back. were you being charged a lease fee on your bill? that is the easiest way to tell for sure. again, read up on the above link. i would have to have get gonged from them after you dump it on craigslist.
( Last edited by residentEvil; Jul 19, 2008 at 09:05 PM. )
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 08:56 PM
 
why buy the boxes if you don't actually own them?
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 09:15 PM
 
cheaper in the long run. $169 from costco or $399 from directtv (for the same box). plus, you still pay a monthly fee of $4.99 (or $5.99, don't remember) on top of that for non primary receiver. when you upgrade/swap out/or close your account, they will send a shipping box via fedexto ship it back to them; free of course. directv OWNS ALL their equipment. even if you buy it from a store (the subsidized price). it is still property of directv. you are only ever renting the equipment. similar to cable; but you just can't go to a store and buy a cable box. directv gives the consumer an option.
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 09:23 PM
 
think of it as an upfront "lease" fee. you just paid, up front, that amount of money for 2 years to have that box at your house.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by residentEvil View Post
think of it as an upfront "lease" fee. you just paid, up front, that amount of money for 2 years to have that box at your house.
That's exactly it. It might not be the right technical term, but it perfectly describes the nature of your transaction.

-t
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 09:30 PM
 
Hmm... I am going to have to dig up the contracts I have for my ReplayTV. They were bought out by DirectTV and while they may have had different policies I am sure if they can find a way to bill me for something they will down the line.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
iLikebeer  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 10:24 PM
 
Ouch, that's strange. I don't remember reading that in the contract. I even had the installers cross out and initial the part of providing a leased receiver.

I still have the receipts from best buy and I'm fairly sure I didn't pay a discounted rate. I'll try to find them sometime this weekend. What's really odd is I bought one and walked out the door without even signing a contract or anything. They said nothing about it being the property of DirecTV and it's not listed on the box. This could end up being a fun, little battle with them.
     
BasketofPuppies
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
why buy the boxes if you don't actually own them?
You don't own the software you bought that came in boxes either.

Granted, that's a little different, given how easy it is to make software freely available to other people.
inscrutable impenetrable impregnable inconceivable
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 11:28 PM
 
I have enough ownership to allow me to sell it without being harassed and threatened by a large corporation.
     
BasketofPuppies
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 12:16 AM
 
You haven't tried selling used software on eBay, have you.
inscrutable impenetrable impregnable inconceivable
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 12:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies View Post
You haven't tried selling used software on eBay, have you.
Why ? Is there a problem with that ?

-t
     
BasketofPuppies
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 12:59 AM
 
Depending on the license, it might, or it might not.

Regardless, a lot of software publishers assume that everyone selling software on eBay is selling something counterfeit or pirated, or has no intention of removing the software from their computer before selling the license to someone else, so they (software publishers) tell eBay to put a stop to such auctions.
inscrutable impenetrable impregnable inconceivable
     
zombie punk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 01:03 AM
 
This is related to the idea that some corporations want to (and have wanted for a long time) to eliminate the resale market for many goods. One strategy in this is to undermine the idea that you are 'selling' something, and instead insinuate that you are 'leasing' it. This may or may not stand up in court, but you most likely don't have the money to find out.
     
Teronzhul
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: FL Cape
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 02:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by iLikebeer View Post
Ouch, that's strange. I don't remember reading that in the contract. I even had the installers cross out and initial the part of providing a leased receiver.


Installers aren't DirecTV employees, with the exception of the previou Connect180 (Ironwood) employees that is. Certainly the ones who did your installation weren't current DirecTV employees in any case. What other legally binding contracts out there do you cross portions out of simply because you don't like them? FYI, if you're signing contracts, then everything in them is binding whether you like it or not.

In any case the IP that ebay is closing the auction for is due to the inclusion of the access card. The access card is always DirecTV's property, and the packaging of the access card itself has the entire lease agreement information included on it. By breaking the packaging (of the card) open, you agreed to the terms of the lease program, for the card and the receiver.

Failing to read the agreement, or ignorance of it will not provide you with any legal recourse. You can sell a DirecTV receiver on ebay sans access card, but if that receiver is still listed on your account as a leased receiver and you don't return it to DirecTV, then they will provide you a bill for the receiver itself. $240 for an HD receiver, $479 for and HD-DVR. Any receiver activated by DirecTV after March 1, 2006 is considered leased. If you don't pay the bill, they will report it to the credit bureaus, so I would recommend returning the boxes. Further, I would make sure to have tracking numbers available in case they're "lost" by DirecTV since sometimes they fail to mark the receivers as returned.

Now, I don't particularly agree with their policies regarding receivers. They're essentially double dipping by having a lease fee close to the actual manufacture cost of the receiver, and then having it returned and sent back out to another customer with the same "new" equipment lease fee. I don't think it is necessarily right, but you really have to pay attention to what you're doing. All of this is spelled out pretty clearly if you actually take the time to read the documentation provided both by the installers themselves, and included in the retail packaging with the receiver.
     
Teronzhul
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: FL Cape
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Hmm... I am going to have to dig up the contracts I have for my ReplayTV. They were bought out by DirectTV and while they may have had different policies I am sure if they can find a way to bill me for something they will down the line.
Any ReplayTV unit you have will have been purchased/activated long prior to the March 1, 2006 lease program start date. They should all be listed as owned receivers on your account so there should be no worries.
     
iLikebeer  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 07:23 AM
 
payed, and walked out. No contracts, full price. Not to mention, EULA's inside a sealed box have been ruled by several courts to be unenforceable.

Anyway, the sales tactics involved are anything but guileless. I'd go on a whole political rant about this, but I'm more worried about the pragmatic side.

As an aside, I don't mean this could be a fun battle in the courts, I have neither the means nor time for that, unless I win powerball. I just mean that I can have a lot of fun arguing with phone support people about fraudulent charges, BBB, internet complaints, etc... They're selling boxes at full price, or at least they were, under false pretenses.
     
iLikebeer  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 07:34 AM
 
Ok, macnn logged me out while I was typing the reply, I couldn't copy the whole message for some reason, and I couldn't edit my post. Dunno if it was the Hampstor, but I'll figure out the beginning half of the post tomorrow.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 07:45 AM
 
Why can't you have a dish at your apartment? You are in the U.S., right? It's against the law to prohibit a tenant from using a satellite dish to receive television.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
BasketofPuppies
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 09:10 AM
 
Glenn, that can't possibly be true. I have never lived in an apartment building or condominium complex that allowed residents to install satellite dishes.

They can't all be naive about this law, can they?
inscrutable impenetrable impregnable inconceivable
     
Teronzhul
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: FL Cape
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 09:20 AM
 
It is against the law to prevent a tenant from having a dish in a private use area. If the only place to get a line of sight from the apartment in question is in the yard (considered a common area) or the roof (also common area) then the apartment management can easily and legally refuse to allow the tenant to have a dish. They can also refuse any installation which would require drilling into the complex or any physical modification of the complex itself. Basically, the only thing that the OTARD mandate fully protects is your right to put a dish on a tripod on your porch/balcony (this assumes you have a south facing apartment) and intend to run cables through a door or window.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2008, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies View Post
Glenn, that can't possibly be true. I have never lived in an apartment building or condominium complex that allowed residents to install satellite dishes.

They can't all be naive about this law, can they?
Naive? No. Intentionally dense? Sure. Lots and lots of apartments in my area have dishes hanging on railings, around corners, just about anywhere they need to be to see the southern sky. It is the property owner's responsibility to demonstrate that your installation is so injurious to the structure that it can't be allowed. This is hard to do when they let you hang pictures and hanging plant, change curtains, and so on. Ask management DIRECTLY how their rule complies with the OTARD mandate.

Here's a quote from a 2001 lawsuit on the subject. The judge said:
Rogers, Circuit Judge: Following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated a rule prohibiting restrictions on certain over-the-air reception devices ("OTARD"). The rule invalidated

[a]ny restriction, including but not limited to any state or local law or regulation, including zoning, land-use or building regulation, or any private covenant, homeowners' association rule or similar restriction on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the property that impairs the installation, maintenance, or use of [antennas that are designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, video programming services via multipoint distribution services, or television broadcast signals]....

Preemption of Local Zoning Regulation of Satellite Earth Stations, Implementation of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Restrictions on Over-the-Air Reception Devices: Television Broadcast Service and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, 11 F.C.C.R. 19276 (1996) ("First OTARD Order"). In 1998, the Commission extended the prohibition, with certain exceptions, to "lease provision[s] ... where the [antenna] user has a ... leasehold interest in the property." In the Matter of Implementation of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996--Restrictions on Over-the-Air Reception Devices: Television Broadcast, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution and Direct Broadcast Satellite Services, 13 F.C.C.R. 23874 (1998) ("Second OTARD Order").

Several trade associations representing real estate owners and property managers(1) appeal the Second OTARD Order, contending that the rule, as amended, is invalid on its face. They contend, first, that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority in extending the OTARD rule to leased property; second, that the amended rule violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;(2) and third, if there is no taking, that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in extending the rule to leaseholds. Finding unpersuasive these facial challenges to the amended OTARD rule, we deny the petition.
So when you cite 11 F.C.C.R. 19276 13 F.C.C.R. 23874 (the relevant FCC regulations), and the manager tilts his head and looks like you broke his brain, ask to speak to the management's lawyers...or to get their contact information so your lawyer can speak to them.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,