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
boxing or wrestling match, or another sports or special event, download Unauthorized Exhibition Retainer
Agreement
From the Law Office of
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