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."
Pretty Sad (Score:2, Interesting)
P.S. fp?
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pretty Sad (puhleeze) (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't you put that comment back where you pulled it from. Did you read the article?
Sounds to me like they got busted doing something illegal. Fine, let them get nailed, and let the court use the DMCA. I think one of two things will happen:
1. The DMCA will be validated, and all hell will break loose, people will be arrested for owning information.
2. Someone gets busted under the DMCA for doing actual illegal activity such as this. Other invoctions of the DMCA, for things like the Skylarov case, will be a glaring example of why they aren't the same thing, and the DMCA will be ammended.
Half a million in damages? (Score:4, Interesting)
Over half a million dollars? That's outrageous!. I suppose that DirectTV is just assuming that anybdy that bought modded equipment was going to buy every single channel and every single pay-per-view event/movie they ever offered. I'm sure that phone companies will start calculating damages from cellphne fraud by assuming that every hacked account was calling to a sex-line in Sudan 24/7. Or even better, that the account was calling to every single phone number in the world, at once 24/7.
Now that I think about it, that would be really amusing.
The DMCA people take a step forward (Score:5, Interesting)
Having tried a few times to establish the full power of the DMCA by prosecuting people almost at random, they have now realised that they will have to start with a few obvious wrongdoers in order to establish credibility and precedent.
I expect after a few of these they'll try another Sklyarov type case and win.
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right. That's why Congress passed the DMCA.
Arrest one script kiddie, and you give some punk a free education.
Arrest the black-hat hacker who makes the scripts for the kiddies, and you can actually do something.
Re:Well, my plans are all shot to hell... (Score:2, Interesting)
You still can; I hear there are lots of places *in your own neighborhood* that sell these these little dedicated boxes that can actually decode satellite signals.
Of course, it will involve not being a fscking cheapskate and stiffing the people that provide the sat. signal.
Re:Different Opinions (Score:5, Interesting)
DirectTV broadcast their signals to everyone. Who are they to demand how their signal is used?
To criminalize the act of decrypting satellite TV is the same as criminalizing the act of translating spanish radio into english. The radio station cannot demand that only people that understand spanish listen to it. It's just taking information that's being broadcast to everyone and translating it into a different form.
Re:What!? (Score:2, Interesting)
About 20 years ago, it was in fact legal to do anything you want with radio waves that passed near you. There was absolutely no ban on radio receivers, or any restrictions on monitoring any frequency. (There were laws against using what you heard--for example police comminications--to commit a crime.)
Then they passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that, for the first time (except during a few years during WW II) made it illegal for Americans to even tune radio receivers to certain frequencies. Manufacturers who made radio scanners, for example, were forced to block out the frequencies used by cell phones.
Back in those days, cell phones were analog and it was very easy to listen in. Now that they're all digital, do you think the government lifted the "frequency block" on radio receivers? Of course not!
Of course they had good intentions! (Score:5, Interesting)
When someone shares knowlegde that they have legitimately aquired, that also sounds like a good intention to me.
When someone sells hardware built from knowledge they have legitimately aquired, that sounds like a good intention to me. (Or at least good entrepreneurship.)
Frankly, there a lot of people that could stand to use a little more time learning how to build TV's and a little less time watching them. How about we start chasing after violent criminals again or spend some resource to solve problems in our schools? My two cents worth anyway...
-Derek
Re:SOME information wants to be free (Score:2, Interesting)
I think your employer would press charges if you "gave out information" on the combination to the finance office's safe!
Doubtful. What would the charge be? Intent to commit theft?
You could very well be fired, but that's not because of a criminal activity.
How I see it (Score:3, Interesting)
It is highly likely that these people were in fact developing these devices/software/whatever with the sole purpose of hacking the satelite networks, when considering how specific and tailored the devices must be. They didn't actually go through the act of committing the crime however. In this country, I always assumed that one had lack the benefit of a doubt in order to be prosecuted. There sure is a lot of doubt here.
Let's take another example: At 3 AM one evening a police officer sees three guys sitting in front a bank, all wearing black masks, 2 with rope and one with a pick axe. Should the police officer be allowed to arrest these guys, just because it appears as though they are planning on robbing the bank? I guess that's the question really, should we be allowed to arrest people just because they might be a threat.......hey wait, this is starting to sound famailar........
Why this case? (Score:2, Interesting)
People who support this "good" example of the DMCA (one comment here says it's finally being used the way it was intended) may be missing the legal ramifications-- this strawman case can make all-too-common abuses harder to fight.
Oh yes. I am not a lawyer.
DTV (Score:3, Interesting)
Get punk rock!
Black Monday [blackmonday.info]
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cable is the same way; if you don't pay for it, they'll come and disconnect it. If they're too lazy or incompetent to disconnect it, then you can watch CATV for free, legally. I do this right now, in fact.
Satellite signals are totally different. They're beaming those into your house whether you pay or not. If you're not a paying customer, but you're still receiving the signals, why can't you build equipment to receive them? If I recall the Federal Communications Act of 1936, it states that people can receive any radio signal they wish. Sure, you have to crack the encryption to turn that signal into something watchable, but as long as the information used to crack the encryption wasn't gained illegally (like by breaking into DirecTV's R&D center), and only by reverse engineering, what's the problem? If they don't want people "stealing" their signal, they shouldn't be sending to the whole country for free. If their current encryption scheme is insufficient to deter or prevent reverse engineering, they should devise a better scheme.
Re:Not quite (Score:2, Interesting)
As for S-video - it is not a digital signal. S-video is basically composit video with luma (black and white picture intensity) on one line and chroma (color information) on another. You can convert S-video to composit by connection those two lines back together (as long as you don't need high quality or long cable length). Recently there were several equipment manufactures that announced FireWire as the first full digital connection method for digital TV.
Re:Two important point - info distro/action (Score:2, Interesting)
On a side note, a good friend of mine has been caugh up in this issue. A few years ago he bought a smart card writer, then cancelled his satellite TV. 2 or 3 months ago the satellite company apparently got a warrant to search the records of the company selling the writers, tracked down my buddy and sent him a nasty note declaring that either he paid them $7000 or they'd see him in court. The interesting thing is that they really don't have the goods on him. He bought a legal smart card writer, and he cancelled his satellite service. Totally circumstantial it seems to me. But he might pay up regardless, because he is scared the downside of going to court could end up costing a lot more than 7 grand.
Wouldn't it be nice...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Really, both sides of the argument have a valid case. Yes, the DMCA is poorly written (and was likely intended that way), but its use in this case it isn't so unreasonable.
The anti-DMCA analogy goes as follows - If someone is talking right in front of me, I should have the right to listen to what they're saying. If they speak in another language, I have the right to learn that language. If they really want me not to have their information, they shouldn't talk in front of me.
As for the pro-DMCA argument (mod me down for saying "pro-DMCA")... Producing (certain types of) content is expensive. These people are out to make money, and if they can't turn a profit, the content will (probably) stop being produced. I happen to like some of this content, therefore I don't want to see it stop being produced. However, I also subscribe to the argument in my previous paragraph.
So, some of us
Just so I don't have to repeat myself... [slashdot.org]
Re:Well, my plans are all shot to hell... (Score:2, Interesting)
> > satellite system for myself."
>
> You still can; I hear there are lots of places *in your own
> neighborhood* that sell these these little dedicated boxes
> that can actually decode satellite signals.
Actually y'see, in Canada this is not the case, entirely.
Yes we do have our own satellite providers, and they do in fact require subscription fees, etc. in order to descramble the signals. However none of them offer HBO or Showtime since this goes against the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC)'s "Canadian Content" (CanCon) regulations. We also don't get numerous other channels which only exist on DirecTV signals. DirecTV has been attempting for many years now to be allowed to sell their product in Canada, but the CRTC will not allow them to offer it (again) due to CanCon regulations. This is all despite the fact that many Canadians really wish they could get DirecTV.
It's important to note that it was a guy from Montreal who wrote the first smart card emulation software to hack DirecTV. This is why. Everybody is fed up with not being able to get a really broadly well-known station like HBO, despite being able to get most of the other US-based stations.
I don't support piracy either but I think the CRTC is just a bunch of losers who don't care what people actually want. Meantime most Canadian-produced content is nowhere near as watchable. Right now: Piracy is the only method by which anyone in Canada *can* see these stations. Canadian cable companies only recently added MTV and MTV 2 to their programming, and even there it's only with a "premium" Digital-only package that you can get those stations. How very 1980's of them.
My $0.02 Canadian.
ad
Re:Excuse me, (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue of "stealing" satellite TV is fundamentally different from that of cable TV. With cable, you can't get it in your house unless you sign a contract with a company to install it. Said contract stipulates that you won't decrypt it, so if you do so you're in breach of contract and you're wrong. Fine.
Satellite signals are broadcast into the house I own and the airspace above my property that I own, without my consent. This isn't a joke people, if I set up equipment to turn those transmissions into usable TV signals, I've done nothing wrong. If I put up a website telling people about my accomplishments, I'm now liable for 5 years imprisonment and a $500K fine? That's the same punishment as criminally negligent manslaughter.
I find it sad that so many posters on here seem to agree that this is illegal and side with the giant money-grubbing corporation. The war is already lost.
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
Course, with the DMCA, I don't know if thats still legal, since you are circumventing encryption regardless of if you have paid for it or not. The DMCA seems to have made possesion of knowledge of how to do the circumvention illegal.
IANAL and I have not read the DMCA. Thats just what it sounds like to a layman.
Re:well.... (Score:4, Interesting)
it stops being their content the moment it reaches my property.
DirectTV has a flawed business model and wants to use laws to keep it going. They have a serious technological problem that they need to correct somehow, not punish people for taking advantage of their failed delivery mechanism.
just because it might seem wrong doesn't make it stealing. they're giving the signal to lots of people with the hope that you'll buy their dish and pay them monthly. i'm sorry, but that signal becomes mine the instant it enters my property. by the same logic, if you drive your car into my driveway, does it become mine? no, but i can tell you to get the fsck outta my driveway and have it towed away if i want to. how's about these folks just get their signal off my land if it's theirs.
Re:well.... (Score:1, Interesting)
By beaming the signal out across North America, haven't they decided that everyone gets it?
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't steal satellite transmissions and I most likely never will. However, I refuse to support a business which goes to the courts to resolve its security issues, rather than improving its business model.
Just like the buggy whip manufacturers tried to create a law saying there had to be a horse in front of a moving carriage.
It's simple really: they have no right to invade my property with their signals. And as another poster said, according to the Federal Communications Act of 1936, it states that people can receive any radio signal they wish.
Like I said, I'm no pirate, but I do not agree with laws that prevent people from sharing information about how to break laws. The crime is in the breaking of the law, not teaching someone how to shoot a gun.
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not likely.
What they will do is tell the meter to no longer deliver power to you. Removing the meter and power line is likely to be: A) too expensive, B) illegal (since in most locales in the US a building without power is not qualified as liveable - turning it off is one thing, removing the ability to deliver is another).
Now if you go turn that meter on, are you just "using the emissions already on your property" or are you illegally using service? The same holds true for most utilities such as water and gas, where in most residential neighborhoods the tap is controlled by a valve on your property. Doesn't mean you get to jack around with it though.
Heck, look at your freaking mailbox -- it's paid for by you, installed by you (or by a contractor), and on your land. Destroy it, or contents within, and it's a federal violation. You don't own it.
If I recall the Federal Communications Act of 1936
I suggest the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1936 Act was almost entirely rewritten by it. (And Judge Green probably rejoiced at its passing... he didn't expect to be the sole regulator of the telephone industry for 30+ years).
You most certainly cannot receive and decode any transmission you wish. Doing so to cellular telephones is illegal, as are military channels. Beamed sat transmission isn't either one of these, obviously, but there's precedent against "don't broadcast into my house!".
Heck, for that matter, would you like the inverse to be true? The Supreme Court ruled against police using passive detection methods such as heat radiation without a search warrant. By your logic, they should have been able to - since if you didn't want them to use such a method you should've prevented the heat from irradiating out from your walls.
I can see the arguments both ways, and I don't like the DMCA in the slightest (and suspect that the people involved in this case could have been prosecuted under other laws), but the whole "quit beaming at me" argument is absolutely absurd.
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:5, Interesting)
Their only viable use is to steal copyrighted presentation of satellite service
Not to be rude, but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about here. That statement is just as true as saying there is no legitimate use for DeCSS outside of making illegal copies of DVDs. The knife analogy stands here, you can reverse engineer anything you like, but as soon as you do something illegal (actually receive and watch these broadcasts, then yes, that should be prosecuted. Until that time, apparently you are guilty until proven innocent. Tell you what, go out to the net and order an ISO 7816 standard smart card programmer. I can almost guarantee you will receive a letter from DirecTV saying that you have done something illegal, and they expect you to pay them $3500 with no proof you have done anything and no due process. This will occur even if you have been using said programmer to code conditional access systems generally available (i.e. Sun's SunRay systems). Thank you for this broad generalization that justifies our current Gestapo regime. Because remember folks, those poor defenseless corporations need to be protected from us evil consumers out to get them.
Re:They go through the air! (Score:4, Interesting)
Things have change when Cell Phones appeared. There was a desire to make a cell call as secure as a landline call. The calls were analog. At the same time they thought voice pagers should be protected as well. Some blocks of frequencies became protected. A receiver that could tune to it is now considered a wiertap deveice. Having scanner that covers cell phone frequencies is the same as clipping on to your neighbors phone line to listen in. Posession of the device is illegal.
This sad news is all spelled out in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's why a nifty scanner bought from Radio Shack does not cover continous from 25 Mhz to 1300 Mhz. There are a few spots in the 800 Mhz band that get skipped. I wonder if anybody listing scanner mods are soon to be targets.
Now protecting decrypting something used as a copyright protection device regardless of whether it is sent over the air, on disk, CD, internet, etc. is covered by the DMCA. Yes there many more things that are now not legal than there used to be.
Re:You are all making a stupid argument (Score:4, Interesting)
They are stealing, stealing stealing. and you want to make it ok, so you can too.
Actually, I don't have DTV, don't have any descramblers, and don't care to because I don't care to watch anything that's on. What I care about is not flopping over on the ground when big companies purchase legislation that takes my rights away so they can squeeze out more profits.
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:You are all making a stupid argument (Score:4, Interesting)
1) yes, that is my model of property rights.
2) it relies on people not being assholes about limited resources. Very much like communism, it looks great on paper but lousy in reality, and therefore would require some sort of laws in regard to it.
3) satellite transmissions are not a limited resource. DirecTV would lose nothing save for a subscription i would not have bought anyway should I choose to utilize it.
So to sum it up, limited resources, particularly those of a natural persuasion, do need some sort of rules governing their diversion or dispensation. Signals are a human construct which are presently being exploited under law with no real benefit of prohibiting their use by the citizenry without paying said corporation, especially in areas where the service is not sold.