This site is for those with
unauthorized descrambler problems
For satellite piracy issues, go to
http://www.piratecardblues.com/
For RIAA or MPAA lawsuits, go to http://www.piratecopyblues.com/
If your problem involves the “UNAUTHORIZED EXHIBITION” of a sporting or
other event, click here.
From the Law Office of Gary
Ruff:
Unauthorized descrambler
possession is detected by the acquisition of purchase records pursuant to civil
proceedings and lawsuits and/or criminal prosecution of cable box suppliers or
discovery in the home by cable company technicians. More specific information
on detection and how the information is utilized as the basis of federal
lawsuits follows at the end of this page; but for now, please know that if a
cable or satellite provider is alleging you have purchased a pirate-box
decoder, do not ignore the matter- for that can lead to a lawsuit and an
ignored lawsuit can lead to a judgment against you in “default” for a considerable
sum of money. A lawsuit against an individual for in home use of an
unauthorized decoder can potentially result in a judgment for $10,000.00 for
each violation, plus attorney fees and full costs. Importantly, the relevant
statutes set forth both civil and criminal penalties.
Although
some have become defendants in lawsuits, many visitors to this site are
recipients of a cable company “demand letter”, wherein a sum of money and
surrender of an unauthorized decoding device is demanded under threat of legal
action. Although these letters may
differ somewhat as to content, a demand letter generally raises numerous
factual and legal issues.
You may
be aware that “issues of fact” and “issues of law” are the only
components directing a legal analysis (an analysis as to whether or not an act
can be the basis of a civil claim or criminal action). For example: whether or not an election
ballot is “dimpled” is an issue of fact; the significance of a “dimple” is an
issue of law. Compelled students will remember that neither issue was easy to
establish. In fact, the law can be more difficult to establish than the facts
(some of the legal issues involved in signal theft cases have yet to be
uniformly resolved). In any event:
As to factual issues: the
outcome will depend on the factual circumstances associated with the alleged
purchase: credibility of invoice evidence, price paid, efficacy of the
device(s), device dedication, subscription and viewing records, credibility of
service provider witnesses, and credibility of the defendant.
Legal
issues are potentially numerous. Three, however, are worthy of particular
attention:
ADMISSIBILITY OF DECODER SUPPLIER INVOICES AND RECORDS IN COURT
How can they prove
I took possession of a box and can they use that proof against me in court?
Don’t they have
to prove that I used the box to decode their signal?
LIABILITY FOR CABLE COMPANY ATTORNEY FEES
Do I have to pay for the cable company’s lawyer?
Here follows an actual court
case, which is calculated to inform you as to many legal and typical factual
details of a pirate-box case. (This is heavy reading; however, those of you with little
time can read just the boldface and pick up the important points,
including my legal opinion and editorial comment [which follow the case], in
about five minutes)
The referenced U.S.C.
sections herein (and especially those under Title 47) demand careful reading:
among other things, they are a composite of both criminal and civil violations
and actual and statutory damages. Fortunately, the LII (legal information
institute) sets forth the statutes in an indented fashion that is inclined to
make the task easier (at least visually). Your editor expresses his gratitude
to them for liberally permitting “links” and for their obvious public service.
TIME WARNER CABLE OF
v.
Edda BARBOSA, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 98 Civ. 3522JSMRLE.
Jan. 2, 2001.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELLIS, Magistrate J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an action by a cable
television system operator against five individuals for unauthorized
interception and viewing of plaintiff's "scrambled" cable-borne television
signals by means of an illegal decoder device. On May 10, 2000, default
judgments were entered against Ziola Diaz, Curtis
Flowers, and Karen Smith, the three defendants who are the subject of this
Report and Recommendation. The matter was referred to the undersigned for an
inquest on damages. Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553(a) and 605(a).
For the reasons stated below, I
recommend that judgment be entered for plaintiff in the amount of $2,388
against Diaz, $10,788 against Flowers, and $10,188 against Smith.
II. BACKGROUND
Time
Warner Cable of
TWCNYC subscribers may elect to subscribe to one or more "premium"
programming services such as Cinemax, Home Box Office
and Showtime, for an additional monthly charge per service. Premium services
range in price from $7 to $13 per month per service. Currently, the full range
of TWCNYC's non-premium and premium programming
channels, not including pay per view events, is offered at an average cost to a
residential subscriber of approximately $85 per month. TWCNYC also offers
pay-per-view programming, which is a service enabling a subscriber to purchase
individual movies, sporting events, or other entertainment for a per-event fee over
and above the subscriber's regular monthly fee. The pay-per-view service
offered by TWCNYC includes selections which typically range in price between
approximately $4 and $49.99 per selection and are offered continuously over a
24-hour period. The aggregate cost for each separate and distinct pay-per-view
event offered by TWCNYC is approximately $400 per month assuming that each is
viewed only once. Most such events can be watched repeatedly each month.
TWCNYC
receives the signals to cable television programing
service, including its premium and most of its pay-per-view programming
channels by transmissions received via orbiting satellites from the producers
of such programming. TWCNYC's subscribers pay a
monthly fee for the specific level and amount of programming services they have
selected and purchased from TWCNYC. Each TWCNYC subscriber is entitled to
receive only the level and amount of cable programming and services which that
subscriber has specifically selected and paid for.
For a subscriber to receive these transmitted cable television signals on his
or her television set, TWCNYC provides each subscriber with a device known as a
"converter-decoder," which converts the multiple signals
simultaneously transmitted over the system into different "channels,"
which can be viewed on a subscriber's television set. To prevent theft and
unauthorized reception, TWCNYC encodes or "scrambles" the signals to
all of its premium and pay-per-view programming services. Programming not
purchased will continue to be scrambled and, therefore, will not be viewable on
the subscriber's television set.
TWCNYC
separately authorizes, either by a technical modification or by a computer
command, each of the converter-decoders provided to its subscribers to
descramble only those scrambled programming channels which the respective
subscriber has selected and purchased. The converter-decoders which TWCNYC
provides to its subscribers have the technology feature and function known as
"addressability." Addressability is a communication link between a
cable operator's central computer and the descrambling and computer circuitry
in each converter-decoder provided to its subscribers. Addressability enables a
cable operator to send a signal command to the converter-decoders assigned to
those subscribers who have purchased a particular program. For pay-per-view
programming, another command is sent to converter-decoders to resume scrambling
when the purchased program has ended. Addressability also enables a cable
operator to upgrade or downgrade their subscribers' authorized levels of
service without having to mechanically alter or physically replace a converter-
decoder by way of a service call to a subscriber's residence. TWCNYC's contract agreements with its subscribers forbid
unauthorized tampering with TWCNYC's equipment and
the unauthorized reception of programming services. It is possible, however,
for an individual to install a modified or "pirate" converter-decoder
onto TWCNYC's cable system or to modify an authorized
converter-decoder into a "pirate" model."Pirate"
devices enable reception of all scrambled programming, including all premium
and pay-per-view channels, without the subscriber paying for such programming.
There is no legitimate function or
purpose on a cable system for a converter-decoder which has been modified to
descramble all scrambled cable programming, including pay per view events. Such
a device is only capable of enabling its user to receive unauthorized cable
television programming without having to make payment to a cable operator.
A.
Claims Against Ziola Diaz
TWCNYC's claims against the Ziola
Diaz arose on January 30, 1997, when a TWCNYC technician during a routine
service call at Diaz's home discovered a modified cable television
converter-decoder. In accordance with TWCNYC policy, this device was seized by
the technician. The converter- decoder seized from Diaz's apartment was secured
and brought to TWCNYC's
Technicians
physically examined the device and connected it to TWCNYC's
cable system. It was found to descramble (and therefore, allow viewing of) all
of TWCNYC's premium and pay-per-view programming
channels without authorization.
Diaz
was installed as a subscriber to TWCNYC's cable
television programming and provided with TWCNYC's
authorized converter-decoder on September 20, 1996. Prior to the seizure of the
modified cable box, Diaz was subscribing to TWCNYC's
standard level of cable service at an approximate cost of $31.70 per month.
Diaz disconnected her service on January 30, 1997.
B.
Claims Against Curtis Flowers
TWCNYC's claims against the Curtis Flowers arose on
June 3, 1997, when a TWCNYC technician during a routine service call at
Flowers' home discovered a modified cable television converter-decoder. This
device was seized by the technician. The converter-decoder seized from Flowers'
apartment was secured and brought to TWCNYC's
Technicians
physically examined the device and connected it to TWCNYC's
cable system.
It
was found to descramble (and therefore, allow viewing of) all of TWCNYC's premium and pay-per-view programming channels
without authorization.
Flowers was installed as a subscriber to TWCNYC's
cable television programming and provided with TWCNYC's
authorized converter-decoder on October 16, 1994. Prior to the seizure of the
modified cable box, the defendant was subscribing to TWCNYC's
standard level with two sets of cable service at an approximate cost of $40 per
month.. Flowers disconnected his service on June 3, 1997.
C.
Claims Against Karen Smith
TWCNYC's claims against Karen Smith arose on May 28, 1997,
when a TWCNYC technician went to her home to retrieve TWCNYC's
converter-decoder after Smith's service had been disconnected. At that time the
technician discovered a modified cable television converter-decoder. This
device was seized by the technician. The converter-decoder seized from Smith's
apartment was secured and brought to TWCNYC's
Technicians
physically examined the device and connected it to TWCNYC's
cable system. It was found to descramble (and therefore, allow viewing of) all
of TWCNYC's premium and pay-per-view programming
channels without authorization
.
Smith was installed as a subscriber to TWCNYC's cable
television programming and provided with TWCNYC's
authorized converter-decoder on November 11, 1994. Prior to the seizure of the
modified cable box, Smith was subscribing to TWCNYC's
standard level of cable service at an approximate cost of $44.80 per month.
TWCNYC disconnected Smith's cable service on May 27, 1997.
III. DISCUSSION
The
defendants have failed to appear or defend in this action and have been
adjudged in default by the orders entered by Judge Martin. "[A] default judgment entered on well-pleaded allegations in a
complaint establishes a defendant's liability." Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading, Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 854 (2d Cir.1995)
(quoting Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51, 63 (2d
Cir.1971), reversed on other grounds, 409 U.S. 363(1973).
Plaintiff was directed by the undersigned to submit affidavits and any other
documentation in support of its request for damages. Plaintiff seeks maximum
statutory damages of $10,000 under 47 U.S.C. §
605 for each defendant's violations.
A. Statutory Framework
Section
553(a) of title 47 of the United States Code provides, in pertinent part:
No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any
communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically
authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically
authorized by law.
Subsection (b) prescribes criminal penalties for willful violations, and
subsection (c) creates a civil cause of action for "any person aggrieved
by any violation of subsection (a)(1)." Civil remedies include injunctive
relief, damages, costs and attorney's fees. 47 U.S.C. §
553(c)(2). As to damages, the party aggrieved may
prove "actual damages" as specified in subsection (c)(3)(A)(I), or,
as plaintiff has done here, may elect to receive, under subsection
(c)(3)(A)(ii), "statutory damages for all violations involved in the
action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court
considers just." Whichever method of computation of damages is chosen, the
amount awarded may be increased if plaintiff proves willfulness or decreased if
defendant proves innocence. 47 U.S.C.
§§ 553(c)(3)(B) and (C).
Section
605(a) of title 47 of the United States Code provides, in pertinent part:
No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio
communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person.
47 U.S.C. § 605(a). Subsections (e)(1)
and (2) prescribe criminal penalties, and subsection (e)(3) creates a civil
right of action for "person[s] aggrieved." 47 U.S.C. §
605(e)(3)(A). Civil remedies include injunctive relief, costs and
attorney's fees, § 605(e)(3)(B)(I) and (iii); and either "actual
damages," § 605(e) (3)(C)(I)(I), or "an award of statutory damages
for each violation ... in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000
...," § 605(e)(3)(C)(I)(II). In provisions that correspond to § 553(c)(3)(B) and (C), the amount awarded under § 605
may be increased if plaintiff proves willfulness or decreased if defendant can
demonstrate innocence. §§ 605(e)(3)(C)(ii) and (iii).
B. Defendants' Liability
TWCNYC's programming is broadcast via orbiting satellites
and is therefore protected under 47 U.S.C. §
605(a) as radio communications, and defendants' unauthorized reception is a
violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a), which prohibits the unauthorized
reception of protected radio communications, as well as § 553(a)(1),
which protects all communication by cable systems. International Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes, 75 F.3d 123, 133
(2d Cir.1996) ( "Sykes II"
); Time Warner Cable of New York City v. U.S. Cable T.V., Inc.,
920 F.Supp. 321, 328-29 (E.D.N.Y.1996). TWCNYC is
a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of 47 U.S.C.
§§ 553(c)(1) and 605(e)(3)(A).
When a court determines that a defendant's conduct has violated both § 605
and §
553 of the Communications Act, a plaintiff may recover damages only under
one of those sections. American Cablevision of Queens v. McGinn,
817 F.Supp. 317, 320
(E.D.N.Y.1993). An aggrieved cable operator is entitled to elect to recover
damages under § 605 in consideration of § 605's
higher damages awards. International Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes,
997 F.2d 998, 1007 (2d Cir.1993); Sykes II, 75 F.3d at 127.
TWCNYC has elected to recover money damages against each defendant in the form
of statutory damages as opposed to actual damages, and seeks enhancement for
willful violations. Because this case resulted in a default judgment, there is
no evidence to contest the finding of willful violation. Defendants, however,
could not have believed that they were legitimately entitled to descramble the
broadcasts using the pirate boxes. These were willful violations. Plaintiff is entitled
to some enhancement of the damages award. Although it is not possible to know
exactly how long defendants profited from the use of the illegal boxes, such
use did deprive plaintiff of significant income. The enhancement of damages for
willfulness should, therefore, take into account the duration of the violation.
For purposes of this Report and recommendation, the Court will assume that the
illegal use began immediately upon the start of service by each defendant.
C. Calculation of Damages
TWCNYC seeks maximum statutory damages of $10,000 from each defendant. The
Court, however, finds that the statutory goals are served by taking into
account the duration of the violation. According to plaintiff, its basic
service costs approximately $30 per month while subscription to all premium
channels costs approximately $85 per month. The plaintiff thus potentially
loses approximately $55 per month when a pirate box allows a user to receive
scrambled channels. In addition, the plaintiff provides multiple pay-per-view
events, movies, and special events each month. Pay-per-view movies cost
approximately $4 per viewing, and special events may cost as much as $50 per
broadcast. While it is not possible to know how many movies the defendants
would have viewed illegally, more than a dozen movies are available each month.
The viewing of ten to twelve movies at $4 per movie and one premium event at
$50 would result in an additional loss to plaintiff of approximately $90 to $98
per month.
[FN1] Adding this amount to the $55 lost on premium programming, the total
loss to plaintiff would be approximately $145 to $153 per month. The Court will
use a figure of $150 for its calculations.
FN1.
These decoders were used in private residences. While in theory defendants
could have viewed every pay-per view offering each time it was broadcast, I
have attempted to make a reasonable assessment of actual use by a private
violator as opposed to a commercial violator. Time and taste would limit the
actual viewing by defendants.
While I find that this amount reasonably approximates the lost revenue from the
use of a pirate box, it would not be sufficient deterrence if the damages
payable by a violator were limited to the value of the stolen services. There
would be no incentive to cease the violation if the penalty were merely the
amount that should have been paid. The statute recognizes this fact in setting
a minimum damage award of $1,000. I find
that the damage award should be roughly equivalent to twice the amount of fees
avoided, or approximately $300 per month.
Defendant Diaz began using her pirate box on or about September 1996 and her
service terminated in January 1997, or a period of approximately four (4)
months. Defendant Flowers began using his pirate box decoder in October 1994
and his service terminated in June 1997, or a period of approximately thirty-two
(32) months. Defendant Smith began using his pirate box on or about November
1994 and her service terminated in May 1997, or a period of approximately
thirty (30) months. At $300 per month, Diaz shall be liable for damages of
$1,200, Flowers for damages of $9,600, and Smith for damages of $9,000.
C. Attorney's Fees
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit by Jennean R.
Lee indicating the tasks performed, the hours spent, and the rate requested. I have
examined the supporting documentation and conclude that plaintiff's attorney's
fees and disbursements were reasonable and adequately documented. Plaintiff
seeks a total award of $3,564, divided equally between the three defendants. I
therefore recommend that TWCNYC be awarded $1,188 against each defendant.
III. CONCLUSION
For willful violation of § 605(a),
I recommend that defendant Diaz pay
statutory damages of $1,200, plus costs and attorney's fees of $1,188, for a
total of $2,388. For willful violation of § 605(a),
I recommend that defendant Flowers pay statutory damages of $9,600, plus costs
and attorney's fees of $1,188, for a total of $10,788. For willful violation of
§ 605(a),
I recommend that defendant Smith
statutory damages of $9,000, plus costs and attorney's fees of $1,188, for a
total of $10,188. Judgment should be entered accordingly.
Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall
have ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Such
objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on all
adversaries, with extra copies delivered to the chambers of the Honorable John
S. Martin,
S.D.N.Y.,2001.
Time Warner Cable of
END OF DOCUMENT
Editor’s Notes: The above case is one of many; it was
selected because it offers clear and detailed explanations of the issues
relevant to a cable theft case. It is important to note that these judgments
were issued in “default”; that is: the defendants did not appear to defend
themselves
ADMISSIBILITY
OF DECODER SUPPLIER INVOICES AND RECORDS IN COURT
Note that the boxes were discovered by cable company
technicians. Lately, however, and due to aggressive efforts on behalf of cable
service providers, computer records of decoder sales by various suppliers are
coming into cable company hands and being utilized as a basis for prosecution
of the purchasers. Generally, this
occurs when the decoder provider (manufacturer or reseller) is successfully
prosecuted under civil and/or criminal provisions of the statutes referred to
in the prior case and the records are acquired as part of a settlement
agreement, seized by law enforcement officials, or pursuant to a Writ of
Seizure. It should be noted that although these purchase and/or shipment
records may be used as a basis of claims against you, they are not necessarily
admissible against you in court. The admissibility in court thereof is subject
to Federal Rules of
Evidence Rule 803(6) and Rule 807, and may be the object of a fairly
complex study.
In order to evaluate your position
relevant to a “pirate-box” prosecution, you must understand a legal principle
known as “burden of proof”. Your editor’s clients frequently
point out that the plaintiff must prove “use” of the device; mere possession is
no violation of the law. That is correct, but not necessarily of practical
effect. This, as the civil standard of proof (known as “preponderance of
evidence”) requires the finder of fact (judge or jury) to make a decision based
upon which is the most probable.
Now, cable company end user cases
rarely go to trial. However, let us assume that during the course of a trial,
the cable company has presented credible (for the sake of our example, we shall
assume it to be admissible) evidence of the purchase of a viable
decoder, but no direct evidence of actual use; together with evidence that
defendant was a cable subscriber (had access to the “feed”) and that the device
required little or no technical skill to activate. At the conclusion of
plaintiff’s case, defense counsel will ask for a dismissal (or directed verdict
if a jury trial) on the ground that the cable company has offered no direct
evidence that the box was actually used to decode the signal (for that is the
heart of the matter); therefore, plaintiff has not made a prima facie case and
the matter should end here, without the subscriber having to testify. Whereupon, the plaintiff’s attorney stands up
and says the equivalent of:
“Look, your Honor: the subscriber
maintains a cable subscription and does not subscribe to premium channels or order pay-per-view movies. She
purchased a ‘decoder’ for $199.00, plus shipping and handling. The purchased decoder has no recognized
legitimate purpose and is capable of decoding our encoded programming without
authorization. Therefore, the subscriber had the means for unauthorized
decoding at her disposal: the “feed” from the cable company, the decoding
device (for which she disbursed a sum of money and the installation of which
required no technical skill) and (presumably) she possessed a television. If
she weren’t going to use it why would she spend good money for it? Accordingly,
it is more likely than not that the purchased decoder was utilized by the
subscriber to unlawfully decode our encoded signal.”
In any event,
based upon the above example, it is possible for the cable company to make a
“prima facie case” against the subscriber.
A “prima facie case” is a case
that will prevail until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Or, stated
differently: plaintiff’s evidence will reasonably allow the conclusion that
plaintiff seeks if defendant produces no credible evidence to rebut it.
If the plaintiff
cable company can establish a prima facie case, it then falls to the subscriber
to present proof that plaintiff’s signal was not decoded without
authorization. Examples include, but are
not limited to: defendant was not a cable service subscriber; defendant did not
take possession of a “pirate-box”; “pirate-box” in issue was not competent to
decode the signal; box was never used to decode the signal; decoding was in
fact authorized; or (and importantly), there are mitigating circumstances which
are relevant to the issue of damages; etc.
In fact, “damages” are an important issue in the litigation of these
cases.
In American courts, and generally
speaking, each party to a lawsuit pays for its own lawyer without regard to which
party wins. However, you will note that in the above case, various awards of
attorney’s fees were granted to the cable companies. That is because these
particular statutes provide that the “aggrieved party” who prevails (wins the
lawsuit) is entitled to attorney fees (plus various other costs, including
investigation expenses). By law, only
the cable or satellite provider can be an “aggrieved party” (see VJC Productions, Inc. v. Kydes, 903 F. Supp. 42). This means that if the subscriber loses he must pay for the service
provider’s attorneys. However, if the service provider loses it is not required
to pay for the subscriber’s attorney fees. Including discovery, conferences and
trial, a proceeding in federal court tends to be formal and elaborate. This is
decidedly to the advantage of the signal providers. Therefore, defendants must
greet litigation with strategies calculated to reduce or eliminate liability
for signal provider attorney fees and shorten and “informalize”
proceedings.
It should be noted that
prosecutions under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553(a)
allow the judge to award to the signal provider and against the losing defendant “reasonable”
attorney fees and recovery of full costs (it’s discretionary). However, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a)
makes an award of “reasonable” attorney fees and full costs mandatory
against a losing defendant (the
judge’s discretion reaches only to what is “reasonable”).
Unless resolved,
signal theft civil cases work their way through three stages:
I. Service
providers directly solicit the subscriber for a sum of money and return of the
box.
II. Legal action, which if successful, terminates with judgment against
subscriber.
III. Judgment collection.
Both federal statutes under which
these civil actions are prosecuted (47 U.S.C. §§ 553(a) ;
605(a) and the
“Wiretap Act”) also set forth criminal penalties; in
fact, they are primarily criminal statutes. That being the case, prudence
dictates that any settlement agreement, even one made prior to the commencement
of a lawsuit, be drafted so as not to facilitate a criminal prosecution for
signal theft (or another civil claim for similar conduct).
Although these websites provide a great amount of
helpful information, it is disconcerting to be suddenly and unwillingly cast
into a situation you do not understand. Even if you are a fast study, the law
relevant to signal theft is complex and the courts have developed varying
interpretations thereof. Moreover, cable companies and their agents do a lot of posturing*
regarding settlement sums. They are well aware as to which attorney has the
specialized knowledge and command of the subject necessary to have prompt and
significant impact upon the outcome.
* Assertions that
exaggerated or inflated positions are policy and which disassemble when confronted by a knowledgeable specialist.
Lastly, remember it is difficult
to negotiate for yourself without imparting incriminating information to the
adversary.
The Law Office of Gary Ruff presents
the preceding as a public service. Gary is experienced in defending against
cable and satellite TV company claims for signal theft, including unauthorized
decryption and illegal or unauthorized possession of decoding equipment. His experience and familiarity with the subject,
together with “economies of scale”* permit him to provide these services for very
reasonable fees.
*For example: the vast majority of
necessary court papers, discovery demands, and motions used in defending these
claims are already in our computers. When that is the case, we don’t have to
charge you to research and write a new document; instead, we charge you
considerably less to edit and submit the one in our files.
Please note: Recent initiatives by AT&T
Broadband, Cablevision, Comcast, Cox Cable, Directv,
Time Warner, Secure Signals International (representing service providers), and
others, have excited a flurry of initial inquiries from prospective clients.
While this response is gratifying, it has been a tax on secretarial time.
Accordingly, and as an alternative to telephoning or emailing, you can download
a draft of Gary’s Retainer Agreement below.
The Law Office of
“Defending Consumers Against
Electronic Piracy Claims” TM
|
200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 207 Melville, N.Y. 11747 Fax: (631) 389-2800 |
545 8th Avenue, Suite 401 New York, N.Y. 10018 Tel: (212) 696-7922 |
|
|
|
Other sites from the Law Office
of
http://www.piratecardblues.com/
http://www.piratecopyblues.com/
Copyright © 2002-2006 by