That judge is an absolute fucktard. The television companies “could” have lost $900 million in business–if Frazier had actually made and sold the devices. He did not, however, make or sell any devices; he gained nothing and they lost nothing. And yet he has to pay monthly restitution for the rest of his life.
Restitution means his monthly payments are going to the satellite companies, right? Since they never lost a dime from any of this guy’s non-actions, the judge has effectively given them a $25,000 handout (assuming Frazier lives to be 78).
The article is poorly written, but it seems to say the device had been built and he already had orders for it. At the very least, the device WAS being made and he DID conspire to help thousands steal.
5 years and 25k(but could be more) seems like a fairly light sentence. The sentence is pumped up to look like they are sending a signal to other theives.
“U.S. District Judge James Moody ordered the restitution Wednesday, based on a formula of how much Frazier’s intended victims, Direct TV and Echostar, would have lost if his scheme had succeeded. The television companies estimate they could have lost $900 million in business.”
Wait a sec. “COULD have lost”?
So victims can now sue for restitution for money that COULD have been stolen, but which wasn’t actually taken?
Holy hell. I’m at a loss for words.
Seems to me that corporations are missing out on a whole new type of income… just identify people who might try to steal from them, and sue them claiming that the only reason the theft didn’t occur was because the company got them arrested first. Sure, it’s a long shot, but if it pays off, it pays off big.
The victims did not sue for anything. This was a criminal trial. If the objects to the fine, maybe he could do a few more years inside instead?
And these companies are losing billions per year from theft as it is.
Okay, so the trial was criminal. The money’s still tagged in the article as “restitution”, though…
According to Merriam-Webster, the word means
“1 : an act of restoring or a condition of being restored: as a : a restoration of something to its rightful owner b : a making good of or giving an equivalent for some injury
2 : a legal action serving to cause restoration of a previous state”
In the article, it’s claimed that the restitution amount is based on how much DirecTV and Echostar “could have” lost… but they didn’t, actually, lose the money, since Frazier didn’t deliver the devices. So why’s he paying restitution?
If someone tries to mug you, but the cops stop him before he can get away with it, do you actually get to show a profit from the experience? Does he have to give you restitution for money he never actually stole from you?
The fact that you’ve been successfully mugged by other people has no bearing on your current situation.
Considering that these satellite signals are passing through everyone’s body as they read this, I’m having a hard time understanding how to can be illegal to view their contents. If the industry wants to prevent people from viewing without paying, they should use better encryption. I’m sick of companies suing when it was their own damn fault that they used simple encryption, because adding decent encryption doesn’t take all that much work.
He knew he was committing a crime but he did it anyway. He already got caught once and was let off in exchange for testimony. I am sure that he was told that the next time he was caught, there would be serious repercussions. He was in possession of illegal items. Would you let a guy off the hook with a Ryder truck full of explosives because he might or might not be going to use them?
Five years (he’ll probably only serve 2 or so) and $500/month seems reasonable to me.
I think the math is off. He’s 28 right now. So 50 years to get to 78 so:
50X12X$500=$300,000
Could someone on the “this is just” side explain why the cable companies should get this money? Is Frazier to pay for the criminals who got away? Did they fund the investigation? I don’t get it.
This has been argued in any number of GD threads. Maybe I have an odd POV (okay, strike the “maybe”), but I have no trouble differentiating between a signal and its content, and have no problem recognizing that the latter can, indeed, be protected.
Let me get this straight: If I do not install a burglar-proof (ha!) lock, then the burglary is my fault? (I know I’m stretching the point, but blaming the provider for this person’s misdeeds is a bit much.)
“Let me get this straight: If I do not install a burglar-proof (ha!) lock, then the burglary is my fault? (I know I’m stretching the point, but blaming the provider for this person’s misdeeds is a bit much.)”
I think the better analogy is if you had all your stuff crated up and sent to the “burglar”'s house, would he be guilty for opening it.
I absolutely HATE the “money we would have lost” analogy that every media company trots out for piracy. I guarantee a good portion of the people that would have bought Mr. Frazier’s illegal devices would not have satellite TV if they couldn’t get it illegally. The companies lose nothing. The people would either steal the signal for free or do without.
The notion that because the electromagnetic waves are accesible to you then you are free to decode them is just silly. There is a law which says you are not free to do it and that is what makes it illegal. There are many things which I am capable of doing like stealing the electric wires along the street or hacking into a DoD computer but the law says it is illegal and that is why it is illegal.
Furthermore, this guy was not intending to watch the ball game without paying. His intent was to make money by helping defraud the cable companies. Sending him to the slammer for some years is fair punishment.
I have a problem with punitive damages and I would get rid of them but as long as they exist then I have no problem with this case. If companies can be made to pay for inexistent damages then they should be able to collect too. Things cut both ways.
Being somewhat knowledgeble about these matters (my father owns a business that sells those types of dishes), I believe the calculated damages in this case to be ABSURD.
As far as my calculations go, to get the 180 million figure you’d have to assume that every single one of the 5000 customers would have kept their receiver and gotten free programming for a period of FIFTY years, AND you’d also have to assume that during those entire 50 years EchoStar would not have added a new tougher encryption method to defeat these hacked receivers,
Additionaly, you’d also have to assume that all 5000 customers, if they wouldn’t have gotten the programming for free, would have purchased the most expensive programming package available to them and kept that up for the remainder of their natural lives.
This is so ridiculously speculative that it’s laughable.
