EFF Coordinates Fight Against DirecTV 268
wumarkus420 writes "In response to recent lawsuits filed by DirecTV against purchasers of smartcard equipment, the EFF and Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society have announced a new site devoted to the legal fight against DirecTV's aggressions. Hopefully, this new site will provide innocent consumers that have been threatened under the veil of the DMCA with professional legal advice and information."
Smart Card Readers (Score:5, Insightful)
Rus
their advice (Score:5, Insightful)
omg what a great business model, sue people for cancelling service to prevent people who will quit because they don't like their business practices.
and wtf does "sudden" mean:
"hello I'd like to stop subscibing, please phase out all my channels over the next 2 years"
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a thought: Become good with Photoshop, you can make a living (or at least augment it, career dependent of course) with it. In a case like that, Adobe wins.
Part of me suspects that's why Adobe's not terribly aggressive about locking up their software. I've got Photoshop, Premiere, and After Effects and none of them are dongle or registration code laden. Just serial #.
Hmm I'm off topic, but that's an aspect of 'piracy' that never seems to come up. Then again, it's an unusual case.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW, it might be worth exploring the permissible uses before calling everyone thieves.
I recall seeing a mainboard with a pack-in feature that was a 'smart-card reader'. It didn't look like any type of flash-card slot I recognised-- perhaps those cards can be used for system-locking or login, or to store small amounts of valuable data (encryption keys?) in a conveinent formfactor.
I love how the answer is litigation though. Didn't Directv used to have a pretty respectable record for attacking this problem with TECHNICAL measures?
Technical approaches are the only sensible way to approach this sort of problem. You may be able to sue Craig and Amy Signal-Stealer, but will you find the 500,000 others doing the same?
Final Thought: If you want to ensure the distribution is controlled, stick to distribution that can be managed all the way to the set. (I'm thinking something like cable, but where they will actively pull up the wires from nonsubscribers)
Wrong Discussion, Bozo (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue here is that DirecTV seems to be hassling people who have the ability to steal programming, whether they actually are or not. Which is, I think you'll agree, pretty scary.
You can buy a gun without being branded a murderer (Score:5, Insightful)
Victor Hugo said, back in 1831/1832, that the printing press killed architecture, by taking away part of what architectural edifices were about (telling a story, imposing a theme, etc). Books lasted longer, could be more widely diffused, and were not subject to being rebuilt and demolished in the same ways (amongst other things, for more read "Ceci tuera cela" in "Notre Dame de Paris").
The Internet is now killing all other media, because it is at once all media, and is the same thing to all people, rather like the book was more accessible than the edifice as Victor Hugo observed had happened from the 15th century onwards*.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, ITV Digital went down due to piracy. Canal Horizons, the Moroccan digital TV unit, also went down due to piracy. Not that people were pirating their signal, they were pirating French digital TV instead ;-)
All this leads us to the logicial conclusion that paying for recorded content is going to be a harder and harder thing to enforce, whatever the medium. Which is great, in my opinion. It might bring back live entertainment, something which was originally killed by the recorded work. People moan about how piracy is killing CDs, DVDs and so on - but the real artists who could really perform live lost a livelihood to recorded works. Maybe they will see a renaissance, which would be much more democratic than some big-ass company making all the $$$ for a recording.
I can't help feeling that content is priced too high. Why should "Friends" actors make a million bucks an episode? Why should Arnold Schwarzenegger make so much? Careful editing and effects respectively make these two vehicles much more successful than the actual TALENT (or lack of) of the actors.
The re-democratisation of content is perhaps happening today. And live shows might perhaps make a comeback. I'd much rather hear a live show in a bar (sometimes for like $5 and maybe I'll leave a tip for the band or buy their self-marketed CD) than pay $15 for recorded works of some pimped singer who actually can't play an instrument or write anything, just has a nice voice _once it is processed_ ...
DirecTV, indeed TV in general, had it coming to them. Even their good content is becoming diluted by the sheer volume of crap out there, and indeed the success of mediocre vehicles like recent Friends, Simpsons and others just goes to show that the public is less and less able to find something good to watch (or listen to). People probably have a strong urge to pirate because it is quite frankly not worth the subscription fee most of the time. And, Internet is already giving us content on demand, including movies, on the wrong side of the law, while conventional media is actually playing catchup. Time to start seeing this for what it is, a paradigm shift for the 21st century.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Insightful)
These cases have been documented and there have been articles about them on
> half the population of Scotland
A nation the English have treated very well in the last few centuries. No wonder they weren't paying for overpriced satellite services. People with a lower median income than their neighbours will naturally not be as willing to pay as often for disposable entertainment. Blame that for the collapse of ITV rather than the piracy itself. It's not like most of those people would have actually paid for the service even if the piracy weren't relatively easy.
That's the mistake of the content industry--they blame every problem on piracy. Instead of blaming $18 CD prices in a downturned economy for the decline in CD sales, they blame digital piracy. Instead of blaming $8.50 movie tickets and $5.00 drinks in a down economy for less-than-expected box office results, they blame piracy. Why not, it's easy, and it helps them eliminate a foe. But it's far from accurate.
Yet when a company starts extorting "settlement" money and equipment from people under the threat of expensive lawsuits, for buying equipment which has any number of geeky-goodness uses unrelated to DirecTV, that's unacceptable. I'm perfectly happy with my digital cable TV service, and yet I'm tempted to buy an "unlooper" and some legitimate smartcard equipment to play with just so I can get that letter from DirecTV. I have a feeling that this will end with DirecTV losing a class-action lawsuit brought by those wrongfully accused and extorted.
It is just unacceptably for a company to do what DirecTV is doing, or to do what the RIAA is doing by sending out DMCA letters based on strings within filenames, etc. Any time you condemn the innocent with the guilty, it is not justice, and it *cannot* be tolerated in our society.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bahh!!! DirecTV has no case! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you're being sarcastic, but why not consider it. they are broadcasting information, why shouldn't someone else listen. they don't have to break in or taps lines or lay bugs, all they are doing is sitting nearby. if two people are talking at normal volume in the library, are other ppl commiting crimes listening to them?
if ibm want to keep their info private then they should make sure it's encrypted to that others can't make any sense of the transmissions. thats alot more effective than trying to sue the listeners.
not that this idea is perfect, as it makes parabolic and laser mikes alot more acceptable, which I don't like. but I still think that if something is broadcast towards you, then you should not be made a criminal just by listening to it.
dave
Re:Bahh!!! DirecTV has no case! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you made some special agreement in the shop when you bought the hardware, then yes, you indeed own that copy of the software too. Of course, you don't get to own any copyright to it, but you do own the copy of it, just as you own a book you buy despite not owning the copyright to it.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of the "intended" market for card readers/writers, there are non-illegal uses for them. Do you blame non-DTV-hackers for buying a $50 T911 instead of a $500 card reader development kit? (yes, there are cheaper "non-hacker" card readers now, but there weren't a year ago; I looked for one)
They only sent letters to people who bought the readers that had been modified to write to directv's cards by circumventing their security measures. The readers were explicitly advertised for this use only.
Incorrect. They sell smartcard readers with un-programmed microcontrollers. Until you "flash the atmel", it's just a blank microcontroller connected to a DB9 and a SC slot. None of the units they sell are shipped "modified to write to directv's cards". They are a blank slate. Until you flash the microcontroller they do EXACTLY NOTHING. You can argue "intent", and "everyone knows..." all you want, but try winning a court case by saying "most people buy these for defrauding DTV". The charge is easily beaten by saying "I don't. I use them for (whatever)". The problem is that it takes many expen$ive lawyer-hours to get to that point, and DTV knows it. They're swatting flies with a 4X8 sheet of plywood here, and it's despicable.
Re:Furthermore (Score:5, Insightful)
DirecTV has no jurisdiction anywhere outside their own corptate structure. They're a friggin company, not a public instituion granted the right by the people to cast judgement. Same goes for the BSA, *AA, etc. They can't raid you. They can only 'lobby by check' politicians who tell their FBI underlings to do the raid..
Repeat after me: laywers++ != law. Don't let their marketeers get into your brain[*].
These verbal slips are just like "IP" and "DRM" phrases that pass into common usage but are really just twisted-meaning corportate bullshit!
Fight the noun.
[*] remember a faraday cage needs total coverage, so you have to go mummy-like, really.
The hat isn't enough.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you realise that you're advocating making technology illegal? How do you propose to decide who is and is not allowed access to smart card programmers? Corporate policing of tools and knowledge is a terrifying prospect.
I mention this because I have a box full of probes, logic analysers and ICE systems at home that I've aquired over many years while working for tech companies. So, that makes me safe right? Well, wrong. If I buy a piece of hardware while working for Path-E-Tech, how does that stop OmniCorp Inc from having me chucked in the clink because they don't want me to have it?
Guilty until proven innocent is not the way it should work, and the sooner we make that clear to the corps, the better.
No offense.. (Score:4, Insightful)
My Soyo Dragon Plus motherboard came with a Smartcard reader.
You're insisting that I must be pirating DirectTV because I bought a high-quality motherboard that came with a metric arseload of extras bundled in?
Informative? Your post is a troll, nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Bahh!!! DirecTV has no case! (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright has no realtion to a EULA, and EULAs are not laws, at most they're contracts which you may or may not be a party to.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:3, Insightful)
Internet, credit cards, and anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government were to try a stunt like this, it would be against the constitution's "ex post facto" rules. But instead, we are moving toward a society that's "laws" are defined by corporate entities.
Though we loathe the idea of the government installing cameras and watching us, bugging our phones, reading our e-mail, record our purchase transactions, and track our movements, we allow corporations to do it all the time. This is already bad enough, but if we allow the government to centralize these corporate databases, then by default, we will have allowed the frightening world of 1984 to exist.
We don't live in a Utopian society... (Score:4, Insightful)
In a sense, the thieves are costing us time and money wether or not they are successful.
The same applies to encryption or cable, satellite, wireless, wired, whatever. If the companies didn't have to spend all the money in development and licensing of encryption technology, the end users could benefit financially. Hey, if they merely split the difference, consumers and the companies could both be better off financially.
So, we don't live in a Utopia - but I find it hard to blame the companies if someone is illegally unencrypting their signals.
That said, if there are non-infringing uses for a technology, I also find it hard to accept a total crackdown on that technology instead of the people who are actually using it to violate the law.
Kind of like how the MPAA would love to see mp3s just disappear and, in fact, how some ISPs prohibit mp3s on your personal websites. Or how bots can find the words "pac" and "man" embedded in a filename and send off a cease and decist letter.
The whole point of my rambling is that I hate thieves (mainly of physical property, but others too) because they make life difficult for EVERYONE, not just the companies they are attacking. At the very least, think of this - you are paying for the hardware and licensing fees to unscramble the content on the DVDS in every DVD player you buy. When you buy a DVD you are also paying for the technology to scramble it. Kind of sucks, doesn't it?
When you get satellite TV, you are paying for the technology to scramble and unscramble it, too, and for the hardware to do it, and for the periodic updates to thwart thieves. If you are an honest, paying customer, you get screwed the worst (which reminds me of copy protection on software, too).
Copyright, revisited (Score:5, Insightful)
Inventors for all practical purposes now means corporate entities, because if they can ban the tools required to investigate and experiment with technology, then the era of the individual inventor is over. The ability of corporations to stifle scientific investigation now rivals that of the Inquisition.
Now the question isn't "what can I invent?", but "can I afford a lawyer to defend my right to invent?"
I actually feel physically sick.
Re:Oh, come on (Score:3, Insightful)
well, yes and no. I mean I'd still think it's wrong for someone to break into ibm to be within their WAP's, but of course thats trespassing anyway.
thing is that intent is difficult to prove. I suppose if you were caught in your car outside ibm redhandedly sniffing their code, then thats one thing, perhaps that would be an offence in my world. but doing the same thing while sat in your own home is another. I mean even the best crypto needs review and work done on it.
as for the gov, well, of course I would never want them listening in on me, but if they had a warrant (got via due process of course) then I think it's fair.
I have to admit, I don't have all the answer, I don't know all the details about how I want my country to turn out, but I have ideas, and I know the general direction I want it to run in.
but I'm enjoying the discussion anyways
dave
Irony in the right wing (Score:3, Insightful)
Just goes to show freedom is only gained by trampling the freedoms of others.
SCO should sue DirecTV next (Score:3, Insightful)
well, DTV has two units, the Tivo and the UTV, both of which run Linux.
so DTV is "pirating" SCOs software (cough).
bah to those who can't see the humor in the above, but at least it's nice to see them finally get under fire from someone.
I know many people who are legit smartcard developers, some for RSA, some for microsoft, etc, who all get letters from DTV about lawsuits. What the hell is this all about?
Heck, there's a guy in town running a photocopy center (you know the kind) using smartcard technology who's getting sued.... Uhm... what the hell?
btw dtv has lost a few of the suits lately, seems some of the judges are starting to get pissed off about their antics.
Re:Furthermore (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Furthermore (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:their advice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Buy a Dish instead, yeah? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Doesn't compress its signals as much as DirecTV.
2. Isn't owned by Murdoch (Mr. "Fair and Balanced"), but is run by Americans.
3. Offers good PVR's, and doesn't charge extra for using them like DirecTV does (you'll hardly notice it's not a Tivo).
4. Offers lower-priced basic service.
I'm quite happy with Dish so far.
Sorry to go OT, but you went OT and got modded up, so what the hell...
Although I can't argue with the fact that DirecTV employs some very scummy tactics, they're service is pretty decent.
As for your points... I can't speak for 1 or 2, however
3. According to some people who've defected from Dish Network, the TiVo's are vastly superior to the Dish Network offerings. They don't lock up, the software is more user friendly etc.
And I quote...
"I was a Dish customer for years.I actually thought that mini-dish TV, and PVR's, meant you had to live with buggy software, and lousy hardware. Wow, was I ever wrong. The 6 months I've been with Directv have been pretty much painless. I hate Dish Network.I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!! Ok now, I'm sure glad I got that off my chest."
Besides, Dish just announced that they WILL start charging MONTHLY fees, sometimes in EXCESS of the DVR fees that DirecTV charges. See this thread [dbstalk.com] for details.
4. Dish is 5 dollars cheaper per month ($29.99 vs. $34.99) for the most basic of service with local channels and you get less channels with dish for that price. Besides, if you use a DVR with this pricing scheme, the price is the same between the two, and as I mentioned, you get less channels.
Example...
DishNetwork
$29.99 basic package with locals (50 channels +locasl)
$9.99 for DVR service
=$40
DirecTV
$34.99 for basic with locals (80 channels +locals)
$4.99 for TiVo DVR
=$40
Whatever, I'm done with my rangent (=rant+tangent) now.