Satellite Hackers Charged Under DMCA 578
RexHavoc writes "'Invoking the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal grand jury has indicted six people on charges of developing software and hardware designed to hack into paid TV satellite transmissions.' My guess is that for those who haven't already plead guilty, they will have a tough time proving that they had good intentions, unlike Dmitry Sklyarov's e-books case."
Good intentions don't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Craig
for a change.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Question though - If the DMCA didnt exist - could they be charged/tried similar to those who install/use illegal cable hookups?
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's wait and see how the case turns out. Perhaps the judge will also recognize the idiocy in punishing people for giving out information.
Writing the code, or giving out the code is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than USING the code to break the law.
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
But still, if I show you how to hack the dish and give you the hardware for it, what law have I broken? Ability does not imply intent. All people who have knifes, aren't cooks. Some are serial killers
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
"Giving out information" has always been able to get you in trouble, if said information is classified or was a trade secret. The only difference now is, giving out information can land you in jail if it costs another corporation a certain amount of money. . . but really, that's nothing new either.
That's nothing new... (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly this is the only application of the DMCA that I've seen to date that I think is reasonable. You've got people creating devices to decrypt copyrighted material that people could legitimately pay for and play in any manner they wanted to. I've got DirecTV, and I can certainly record the shows, and excerpt them for commentary, etc. There's no reason that you need to decrypt these signals, save for not having to pay for them.
They go through the air! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can decode it, and it passes THROUGH THE AIR, it shuoldn't matter what it is.
But people have forgotten all about that.
Two important point - info distro/action (Score:5, Insightful)
NO
2. Should it be illegal to actually do said 'thing'.
Yes, so long as said thing violates what the citizens want to be wrong.
In the end, I don't want to be breaking the law by simply knowing something, and sharing that knowledge. That's the thing the DMCA does that scares me.
Different Opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good thing that we don't have a DMCA-style piece of legislation for weapons, or any person who has PVC pipes, potatos and hairspray in their house could be brought up on charges.
If we assume people are criminals because they have the tools to commit a crime, everyone with hands should be locked up to provent potential fist-fights. Every person over 21 should be held for potential public drunkeness. Every eighteen-year-old in the US should be arrested for the possibilty of providing cigarettes to minors. And every car owner should be thrown in jail for possible vehicular manslaughter.
Not that I'm approving of breaking the law. But the DMCA is the same mentality as suing McDonald's for dropping coffee in your lap. It's saying that you aren't capable of not doing these things without intervention; hat anyone would drop coffee in their lap if there was no label; that anyone would steal satellite services if they knew how; that anyone with a gun will surely commit murder.
If we have become so weak as a people to no longer be able to stop ourselves from any activities, then we need more legislation than the DMCA. But, as long as we are capable of rational thought, we should be held accountable for our actions, not our thoughts.
Intention irrelevant.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA is the modern day non-racial equivalent of the Jim Crow laws. If you can keep "them" uneducated you can keep "them" under control.
Re:for a change.... (Score:2, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw their intent. I don't care WHAT they intended to do. If they hacked their satellite system and broke the law, fine.
If they simply DESCRIBE how to do so, that should not be illegal. Period.
Re:Different Opinions (Score:3, Insightful)
But the DMCA is the same mentality as suing McDonald's for dropping coffee in your lap.
You had me until that one. I'm all for suing McDonalds because they serve 190+ degree coffee that melts the plastic lid and explodes all over your lap, causing third degree burns on your thighs and genitals. Especially when they had already settled this exact same situation over 700 times for about $20,000 each.
The DMCA is a bit different, to say the least. It's more like declaring it a felony to install aftermarket parts on your car.
Hack into a transmission? (Score:1, Insightful)
These companies are beaming a signal right into my house! On Purpose!
If they don't want people to decode their signal, then perhaps they should refrain from beaming the signal at them. Duh!
Have you seen these anti-piracy ads?
Paraphrased: "This man is about to steal something... blah blah blah... He's stealing signals that we are beaming into his house!"
Now, where did I put my tinfoil hat?
Re:Half a million in damages? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that DirecTV has not reported this loss. I suppose this could lead to 1 of 2 things. Either the losses must be re-evaluated, or DirecTV executives are in breach of trust and should now all go to jail!
Re:well.... (Score:2, Insightful)
maybe that could be a good argument if it were true...if you are on the internet, then id say your chances of being out of range of any kind of cable provider are slim to none.
plus, them not wanting to sell you service is their right and does NOT entitle you to steal their service, regardless of how little money the lose from your actions (and, yes...stealing satellite cable does still cost them resources)! For example, if i had the money, i would want to buy myself a harrier jet...but guess what, I WONT GET ONE! why not? because the military wont sell it to me! so does that give me the right to break into a military compound and STEAL one? i think not!
Question for the lawyers out there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Under current law, it seems that if someone throws a brick through my window and I pick it up, I am guilty of stealing a brick.
Re:They go through the air! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't apologize for the satelite TV providers or the FCC which (fails to) regulate them. I have to watch commercials AND pay for it? No way. That's why I don't have a satelite dish. I would gladly pay if it didn't have commercials and I would gladly watch if it were free. If more people felt this way and weren't mindless sheep the world would be a much better place.
Re:well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then move.
So why shouldn't I decrypt the information?
Whether or not it costs them money is only part of the problem. The bottom line is that it's their content, and they get to decide who gets it and for how much.
Why should people go to jail if they help me decrypt the information?
Because it's not their content either. While they're breaking the law, you can't seriously think that they're going to make sure that only people who *can't* buy DirecTV are going to gain access to their circumvention hardware/software. It's not their content, not their responsibility, and not for them to decide.
Another argument is that if you don't get the content through satellite, and it's important to you, then you'll rent/buy DVDs. Thus, content producers will be compensated for their efforts in one way or another.
I know it's convenient. I know it's fun. I know it's cheap. I know that it's nice to have. I know that there are rationalizations for having it.
It's still stealing.
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:1, Insightful)
Added to that, I might also note that without a proper device for translating the signal you do not "listen" to anything -- unless you are intentionally attempting to decode and view a satellite transmission, you are forced to "hear" nothing at all.
I really don't get people like you. You justify thievery for reasons that don't really make sense, and you believe it your right to steal on technicalities. Stealing is still illegal no matter how you try to distance yourself from the crime.
Fair use when the author refuses to sell copies (Score:2, Insightful)
Then move.
What's the fastest way to immigrate legally?
Whether or not it costs them money is only part of the problem. The bottom line is that it's their content
* WARNING * IANAL * Oddball legal theory follows *
The fact that it doesn't cost the author money would seem to weigh heavily in the consumer's favor in fair use laws. An example of a fair use law in a country chosen at random is 17 USC 107 [cornell.edu], which bases the determination of fair use partly on "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It may be possible to argue that by not selling copies of a work in a particular geographical area, an author admits that there exists no "market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Another argument is that if you don't get the content through satellite, and it's important to you, then you'll rent/buy DVDs.
And if the author doesn't sell copies of the work in DVD, VHS, or any other popular video format, then it could be argued that the author admits absence of a "market for or value of the copyrighted work" in any popular video format.
And if... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you moment you decided to start selling it to other people, when it has but one purpose, you're going to have to expect to draw the attention of DirecTV, and the government.
I'm not a fan of the DMCA. It's an awful piece of legislation, having no place in an allegedly free society, but let's not compare this to the DeCSS case.
DeCSS has a perfectly legitimate use.
What legitimate use does this have? The only thing you can do with it is pirate Satellite television.
Since there is only one concievable use for this, I think it's reasonable to assume that:
Why would you pay for something having only one use, if you didn't intend to use it?
Let's not allow our dislike for the DMCA for color our outlook to the point where we think all criminal activities it addresses are perfectly acceptible practices. It's a bad law, but crime is still crime, and theft is still theft. Theft should remain a crime, right?
This is sad (Score:1, Insightful)
Smart card manufacturers shouldn't even bother makeing their cards more secure. After all, it is against the law to reverse engineer them, so no one will ever try.
If reverse engineering is against the law, only people that obey the law are going to care.
The criminals will ultiamately win because there is no immeadiate reason to make things more secure.
This DMCA will ultimately lead to a weakening in the security of all data systems
It is against the law to murder, yet people still do it.
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
The DMCA. Like it or not, it's the law.
Ability does not imply intent. All people who have knifes, aren't cooks. Some are serial killers :)
You may remember the extensive 'fair use' discussions that have gone on here and elsewhere around the 'net. The point of fair use says that it is reasonable to use copyrighted material for brief excerpts, private use, and so on.
Let's pretend that we treat knives as a 'fair use' item. Knives can be used for substantial non-infringing/illegal uses, like chopping tomatoes, or opening boxes. When used in a manner that harms someone, they are arrested for murder, and the weapon is taken in as evidence.
Okay, now we'll talk about a hacked satellite dish box. Such boxes do NOT have substantial non-infringing uses. Their only viable use is to steal copyrighted presentation of satellite service. Even without the DMCA, you are guilty of contributory copyright infringement...and the illegal box should be taken in as evidence.
The DMCA causes problems when invoked where 'fair use' may be being used, such as in the Adobe E-Book case, where a piece of software that could be used to steal e-books could also be used to read a purchased book to a blind man, even if the e-book says 'no'.
Although I object to the DMCA, whether the DMCA or standard copyright law is invoked to arrest these people is irrelevant. If they've done what's claimed, they're guilty of standard copyright infringement and should be punished. This court case will not determine anything about the future of the DMCA or its paradoxes. It just happened to be used here.
Next time we get another Skylarov type case and it comes back not guilty, then there's more meat to go on.
But to summarize, a knife analogy is not reasonable here. If you're hacking satellite boxes that can theoretically receive signals you didn't pay for, you're going to have to do a lot of convincing to make 12 jurors believe you did it because you were interested in how the box worked and wanted to (legally) reverse engineer it.
If you disagree with that, then you're asking for a more broad right; that of engineers/geeks/technical people to do whatever they choose with technology for their own purposes. If a jury finds that whatever that technology is is primarily for an illegal act, you're going to get burned, no matter what you say.
It's just a simplification, and a jury that comes to the conclusion that an illegal satellite box has never been used for anything but to steal television will deliver a guilty verdict more often than not.
Re:Wouldn't it be nice...? (Score:5, Insightful)
BOrn stupid and sadly with the ability to speak (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well.... (Score:4, Insightful)
What're you talking about? It's a great business model that uses EM radiation to deliver content to millions of people who appreciate having that option. Why should we ditch the wonderful benefits of satellite dish reception of various types of signals because a few people feel they have the misguided right to everything in the universe that's within their reach.
They have a serious technological problem that they need to correct somehow, not punish people for taking advantage of their failed delivery mechanism.
Bah. Homeowners wouldn't even have any clue of that satellite signal, if they were obsessing over the whole "It passes through my house!" nonsense. Calling it a "failed delivery mechanism" is unreasonable. Homeowners decrypting the signal aren't just stumbling across something in their living room, they're actively employing sophisticated technological devices to take something that isn't theirs.
DirecTV makes a reasonable effort to scramble their signal, and they shouldn't have to constantly expend development and legal force to prevent weasels from trying to steal their content.
Re:How I see it (Score:2, Insightful)
Buglarly tools aren't a bad analogy for SOME of this technology.
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:1, Insightful)
You bet! Secure those phones if you don't want people tapping in.
Do you have the right to tap into the cable on the curb and watch free TV? Do you have the right to splice into your neighbor's phone line to bill your calls to him?
Nope, this is completely different and you're just confusing the issue - now if the neighbor was running their phone or cable in through one window of my house and out the other without any agreement then maybe.
The fact that the medium is radio waves rather than a cable doesn't give you the right to the content. It's irrelevant.
Sure it does - if the medium is intruding onto my property without permission it's mine.
DirecTV distributes copyrighted material to customers who pay for it.
Fine, don't send the signal to me then - I didn't ask for it. It's also not my fault if the medium you choose is flawed enough to not be able to prevent that.
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:2, Insightful)
That becomes an invasion of privacy, which is protected by various laws. TV channels are not people, though, and thus have no right to privacy. Completely wrong analogy.
Do you have the right to tap into the cable on the curb and watch free TV? Do you have the right to splice into your neighbor's phone line to bill your calls to him?
The cable tower at the curb is the property of the cable company. That's trespassing. Again, wrong analogy.
The fact that the medium is radio waves rather than a cable doesn't give you the right to the content. It's irrelevant.
Actually, it does give you the right to the scrambled/encrypted content. It just doesn't give you the right to descramble/decrypt it. This has already been upheld in the descrambler trials back in the 80s. So while you're right, you're also wrong.
Stealing that signal is no different from any other intellectual property theft.
Actually, it is very different. It is akin to someone handing a reporter a classified document. Is the reporter liable? They aren't supposed to be. The person doing the handing is liable. In the same vein, if DirecTV signals were not encrypted, they would be similarly liable. Only the encryption protects them, both technically and legally.
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
The other 5% may come from the inside, but as far as it being done with personal info, it isn't always.
>ALL INFORMATION IS NOT FREE EVER !!!
Well, you're pretty much correct now. But Before Disney bought out the Copyright Laws all information that was disseminated to _anyone_ was pretty much guaranteed to be free at some point. When that point was was dependent on how lax the company is (depending on the company) and how strong trade laws are.
Re:You are all making a stupid argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really not, though. Transmissions you receive should be your own property to do with as you want, unless there is some compelling reason against it. America was founded on freedom, and we better have damn good reasons to make laws that take freedom away.
In the examples you gave, listening to cell phones and using passive detection methods represent significant invasion of privacy. We therefore have laws against it, to protect people's rights. Also, there's a compelling interest in national security that it's illegal to listen to military channels. The right to privacy, and national security, supercedes the right to listen to those particular transmissions.
Now, DTV telling me I can't listen to their transmissions is an infringement on my basic rights. I'm fine with your other examples, I'll give up my right to listen because there are important reasons to do so.
Now. Please, please tell me where is the compelling reason to allow legislation that makes listening to DTV broadcasts illegal? All I smell is money. Lots and lots of money, purchasing laws. Wonderful place we live in.
Arr (Score:4, Insightful)
The satellite TV industry and the Motion Picture Association of America lose millions of dollars from piracy, he noted.
Thank God they stopped these scoundrels. Who can say how many children went hungry because these miscreants gathered radio waves instead of letting them hit the ground.
Re:Different Opinions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You are all making a stupid argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they are an essential service. Satellite TV at home is not the only way to transmit video, and is not an essential service. I wouldnt mind if it didnt exist at all. Oh, and i support communist ideals, for those who hadnt noticed.
Shouldn't be DMCA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I simply can't believe this (Score:3, Insightful)
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or
individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,
or turned back."
-Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
This is from 1939, and people still haven't gotten it. DTV has chosen to use a public medium to broadcast their signal. Well, signal-decryption technology has now grown to the point that people can view their broadcasts. So what do they do? Immediately turn to the courts, and try to screw people over and take away their rights. The fact that this outrageous behavior is not only tolerated but accepted amazes me. Whatever happened to inventors and entrepreneurs making money by virtue of the value of their products, rather than sueing the hell out of people?? DTV chose a public medium, now let's see. If they weren't aware that everyone was gonna get the signals, why'd they bother encrypting at all? No, they knew damn well, they spent a little money on encrypting it, and now when that's no good anymore, instead of spending some more money and making their service better, they're spending it on the courts.
I agree, I don't know why more people don't see it this way...
Re:How I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
He is allowed to ask them to please stay put because he has some questions. They are allowed to walk away, not answer questions, or wait. Since it appears to a reasonable person that these people might be planning a specific crime, the officer is allowed to insist that they stay put, or, to invite them to his office. Or he can arrest them. At the instant that they are not free to leave, they are also entitled to the rights of the accused. In particular, it becomes the governments' responsibility to prove there was a conspiracy to rob a bank.
When it turns out that they were waiting for a bus to go on a rock climbing trip, they aren't entitled to a refund on their tickets. (I personally feel the government should be required to compensate those who it accuses but turn out to be innocent. I take this to the extreme that, I believe a single case of an execution where the prisoner is later proven innocent, should be serious enough to bankrupt a State in compensation to the victim's family. Every day you're in prison under a false accusation should be worth a few thousand bucks. Governments should face really harsh consequences for fuckups like that -- consequences serious enough that they stand to lose their power to govern.)
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:3, Insightful)
You argument is completely invalid. Copyright gives the author the right to limit the copying of his content. This means that if I create a television program, I have the right to allow certain companies to distribute it, and others not to.
If, however, I choose to distribute my work, I cannot force people not to listen or watch. This is much like standing in the town square and reading my poetry aloud, but then claiming that anyone who listens must pay a fee, or else must plug their ears.
If they broadcast their copywritten work, I have the right to watch it as long as I'm not trespassing on their property. If they want to exact a fee, then they must establish a system which protects their content, such as the encryption system currently used by DirecTV, in order to coerce people into paying instead of attempting to decrypt it themselves. Unfortunately, because of the DMCA, even though it is fully legal to receive the DirecTV transmission and record it to disc, it is illegal to decrypt it.
What you're advocating is eliminating the encryption altogether; the only way of then enforcing your claim that only payers should be able to watch the signal is to create a police state where the cops fly over neighborhoods looking for unauthorized satellite dishes. It is not up to the government to enforce someone's flawed business model.