Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Coordinates Fight Against DirecTV

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, come on (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @04:17AM (#6683615)
    You play with fire, you get burned. You could argue that it's actually worse than software "piracy" because most of these people COULD afford the subscriptions if they wanted to, and are therefore depriving the producers of income (unlike, maybe, potential users of Photoshop at $600 a pop who could never afford it anyway).

    In this case I can't buy the "substantial non-infringing use" argument, as having dabbled in satellite technology for a while, I know how huge the market is for pirate cards. It was one of the factors in the collapse of ITV Digital in the UK, as half the population of Scotland - where for some reason, this is especially rife - were using bent cards.

    There also used to be a huge trade in D2MAC cards and PC-connected EEPROM programmers so people in the UK could get free Swedish pr0n and Premiership soccer games on Norwegian TV.

  • by dphoenix ( 623525 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @04:19AM (#6683627)
    I think that DirecTV's case against the modders is EFF'in' bullshit.
    Once you buy hardware, you own it.
    That may not be the case with copyright protected content, but just as you are authorized to privately show a DVD you own as many times as you want to (.. for now), you can privately hack your hardware any way you want to! Sealand, anyone? Or perhaps China. Australia would be good, except they just reversed their earlier decision and made selling mod-chips illegal again. However, it is still legal to install them over there!
  • by kscd ( 414074 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @04:21AM (#6683633)
    Forgive me if I'm off-topic. I'm glad the EFF has decided to fight this. I remember a while back there was some talk of donating money to the 4 kids involved in legal fights with the RIAA over enhancing the Windows sharing available on their campuses. While donating money to them to recoup their settlements was a novel idea, how about setting up a sort of legal defense fund for similarly accused students for the future. That way some of these cases may actually go to trial, and the absurdity of the DMCA can be tested. Think of it, 60 million ppl use peer to peer. We support artists, just not the cartels that house them now. (Hell, I haven't even used these networks in years, considering all the shit that's put out by the majors, I rely on CDbaby.com to find new music.)It's time to fix the broken state of the law to be more in line with serving the people it was created for.
  • by MichaelCrawford ( 610140 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @04:21AM (#6683634) Homepage Journal
    My understanding is that whatever kangaroo court hears domain dispute consistently sides with trademark holders. So I bet DirectTV's first step will be to take the DirecTVDefense.org domain away from the EFF.

    A friend of mine has operated a website called www.afm.com [afm.com] for quite some time. "AFM" stands for American Flea Market. A little while ago the American Film Marketing Assocation [afma.com] disputed the domain, saying that he was cybersquatting on their trademark. Their complaint filled a four-inch binder. He's operated the domain for several years before hearing from these jokers.

    They accused any of everything from kidnapping the Lindbergh baby to crashing those planes into the World Trade Center. Oh, yeah, and Andy had weapons of mass destruction.

    My friend is no fool. He fought the dispute tooth and nail, without any legal representation - and won, he got to keep his domain. But not everyone has been so lucky.

    Andy put up a site about it called www.ShameOnTheAFMA.com [shameontheafma.com], which has some resources that others could use to defend their domains.

  • Re:Oh, come on (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fyonn ( 115426 ) <dave@fyonn.net> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @04:27AM (#6683653) Homepage
    In this case I can't buy the "substantial non-infringing use"

    and there is a huge market for pirate video's too (as hilary rosen so vociferously predicted), should they have been made illegal too?

    yes, there are alot of people who do use the cards to pirate signal, but there are also quite a few people who have legitimate uses for them and for drecttv to blanket sue *anyone* who has one is just plain wrong imho.

    besides, there is a certain logic to say that the consumers are being sprayed with encrypted signal, why should someone else have a say in what they can do with the EM waves in their own property? if they can break the crypto, then perhaps directv should try making the technology better. after all, the consumers are passively receiving the signal, it's not like they are tapping into a private line.

    dave
  • It's a Witchhunt (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @05:07AM (#6683763)
    I bought a smart card programmer for a friend overseas and had it delivered to my fathers address. My dad was a huge fan of Direct TV (bunch of dishes, always paid his bill) until they started threatening him with a lawsuit.

    Now he is a fan of Dish Network...
  • Re:Oh, come on (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tetro ( 545711 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @06:23AM (#6683941) Homepage
    You don't have the right to do whatever you want with the waves that cross your property. A good example is mobile phone waves. It's illegal and wrong to snoop onto peoples' conversations based on the fact that their signals are crossing over your property.
  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @07:00AM (#6684016) Homepage

    >DirecTV seems to be hassling people who have the ability to steal programming

    Have or had. Let's say I sold my programmer at a garage sale. Now, how do I go about proving that?

  • Re:Oh, come on (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fyonn ( 115426 ) <dave@fyonn.net> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @07:08AM (#6684032) Homepage
    You don't have the right to do whatever you want with the waves that cross your property. A good example is mobile phone waves. It's illegal and wrong to snoop onto peoples' conversations based on the fact that their signals are crossing over your property

    you're missing my logic. yes, I do think it's an invasion of privacy to listen to someone elses phone calls, but I also think the onus is on the phone companies to make the encryption of cellphone calls strong enough that people can't listen in.

    and no, I don't buy the story that the authorities need the crypto to be weak so that they can listen to crims plan their next crime, cell phone conversations are only encrypted when over the air, they travel along the wires (ie from cellbase to the cell companies switches) in plaintext form and if the authorities have a warrant then they can listen there.

    I'm a proponent of crypto, everyone should have access to it and it shouldn't be artifically weakened, if the authorities want to break it, then they should break it or find the guy who crypted it and ask for the keys. artificially weakening crypto will only hurt in the long run I think.

    so frankly I think it should not be illegal for someone to try and crack the crypto on the mobile phone waves going over their property, but I also think that the phone co should have an obligation to make sure that the crypto for their phones is kept uptodate and that no-one cal break into it.

    thoughts and comments?

    dave
  • by fyonn ( 115426 ) <dave@fyonn.net> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @08:46AM (#6684577) Homepage
    I see your point, and I'm very glad that you're argueing you side with reason, and not just flaming me :)

    yes, I know we're not living in utopia and indeed I have both locks and alarms on my car and home, more's the pity.

    I don't know, I think that there is much to be said for companies making sure they do things properly rather than do it half heartedly and then use the law to go the rest of the way. if they did it properly to begin with then there would be very few lawsuits as very few people would be capable of committing the crime in the first place.

    directv's business plan involves spraying EM radiation across everyone in america, you get that radiation whether you are a customer or not. cable companies only send their signals to people who are paid up customers to some level. a cable co can, theoretically, only send the tv stations to each customer that the person is listed at head office as having paid for (I admit, I really don't know all the tech involved) but a satellite company can't do that so easily. thats a given fact thats known beforehand and must be taken into consideration. they obviously have done so when the decided to encrypt the signal, but if they're going to do so then they should do it properly instead of doing it badly and then bleating about it afterwards. it's like adobe complainging that someone broke their rot13 encryption and having someone arrested for it, ffs, they put it out there in the first place in that bad state and then they expect someone else to take responsibility for it.

    yes, it costs money to develop all this, but that should be known beforehand and written into their plan. it's like companies who produce drugs, it would be alot cheaper for all concerned if they didn't have to go through all that silly fda testing before they hit the market, yet they do and thats known about beforehand. not everything should be produced at lowest cost, sometimes you have to pay extra to get a better product.

    with a satellite company there will likely be people getting the signal who don't even live in the states (I guess that the signal overlaps into canada and mexico?). it seems to me that if you're publically broadcasting data at such a wide scale, you've got to expect that people will have a play with it.

    going out of your way to evesdrop on someone is one thing but if you're sitting in your home, not constrained by any licences you've signed (as you might not be a customer of directv) etc, then why is decrypting some signals that come *to you* illegal?

    who knows how much IP of aliens we've ignored by recording all that stuff at arecibo for example :)

    talking about dvd's. the licencing costs for them are hideous, I think they are in the league of 70% of the retail cost goes to the dvd consortium in licencing money, however, I think most of the cost of that has nothing to do with pirates, and everything to do with wanting to control the market and squeeze some more cash out of the consumers. look at the infamous divx? (the dvd-like "expiring movie" concept, not the video file). I don't think that had any copy protection in it, it was purely based around selling someone a film and then restricting how they watch it (in this case, number of times).

    why should I not be able to buy dvd's in america and watch them here. yes, I know I'm preaching to the converted here, and I know that I can (and have) had my player hacked to be multiregion, but why should I have to do these things? thats not about piracy, it's about control and I, like many here, don't like it.

    I do find it very difficult to accept the idea of banning technology though, it's a short term measure at best, you can't stop the progress of humanity. banning the tech won't get rid of it, just make it harder to find. necessity is the mother of invention and if you force people to kake their technology hard to find, then they will find new and interesting ways of making it hard to find. if you force the companies to find new
  • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @09:05AM (#6684697) Homepage
    The traditional method is to find a vacant house (but not too blatantly vacant) and where the package can be delivered and left. When you expect something to arrive, keep an eye on the place so that you can get the package on the doorstep before someone else.

    Alternatively, you might use someone else's address, if you felt you could intercept the package before they picked it up.
  • by n0cturnal79 ( 690290 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @10:59AM (#6685808)
    You do not want to do that! These guys are bloodthirsty villans. I was served for a summons to Federal Court over a month and a half ago. I have been in contact with the EFF for a while now, see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71490&cid=6465 738 . . . . but as much as they want to help, they cannot afford to represent all of us in court. Thus, you end up in the same boat i am in. . . . a sinking one. . . . .

    I Was contacted yesterday to see if i wanted to pay them off. . . . and i was told that all they wanted was 3 months of my pay-checks upfront, and half of the money i make for 6 months. . . I have a wife and 2 children, we can't live up to there demands and eat. . . . So, its off to the slaughter I go. . . . . Alone. . . . .
  • by MrChris007 ( 523454 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @11:00AM (#6685819)
    The web site mentions the rather strange fact that "intercepting satellite signals" is illegal. This may be a bit off topic, but it seems to me that this is very strange. Is it illegal to purchase or build your own radio receiver which will receive radio wave signals that are constantly broadcast into your home ? Of course not. Why then is it that when a satellite company broadcasts signals into my home, it is illegal for me to "intercept" those signals. Do they "own" the signal ? If so and if they don't want me to recieve their signal if I am not paying for it then why are they broadcasting it into my home? Can I sue them for invading my privacy by boradcasting signals into my home that I do not want to receive? I also find the use of the term "intercept" to be strange much the same way it is incorrect so say that making a copy of copyrighted software is "stealing". Just as copying software is not really "stealing" , it's "copying" so it is also true that when a satellite signal enters my home I am not "intercepting" it (because if I am , then who is it intended for ? As far as I know there is no one living underground below me), but rather I am "receiving" it, and it was the satellite company that sent it to me in the first place, even if I do not pay for it or ask for it. If I have the capability to build my own satellite reciever and decode the signals that are being sent into my home I see no reason why I should not be allowed to do so.
  • by n0cturnal79 ( 690290 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @11:02AM (#6685850)
    i had some problems with the link to my original post. . . so here it is . . . . . Yes, I have been served with papers, and trust me. . . this whole thing sucks. I was served at work, where i am a unofficial IT guy, with my fellow co-workers looking on as if i were a dangerous criminal. (Embarassing does not even begin to explain the feeling.) My first reaction was, WTF is this? I have never been sued before, i have never been in any kind of trouble before, hell, i have not had a speeding ticket in over 10 years. . . . but low and behold, here was a document stating that i am being sued for $120,000 by a company that i have been a long standing customer with for many years. As i read on, i found out that it was for a Smart Card Programmer. Once again that WTF feeling came back. . . . I purchased this equipment over 2 years ago for a security project that never got off of the ground. A company that i worked for wanted a better way to keep control over who used the company network, i found some info on smart cards, did a search for "smart card programmer" and purchased the cheapest unit i could find. (about $160 if memory serves me correctly), Only to find out that it would not work for what i wanted to do. And now im being sued! And as i said earlier, i am a DTV customer, have been for 6 years. If i were going to hack TV cards, you would think that i would do mine first! Just to make one thing clear, I am a poor guy, And as a poor guy, there are not many options for me to take. Anyway, i dont want to rant about this, however i believe that it is a great injustice. This is just extortion, plain and simple. I was told that i could settle for $4,500 before i went to court, or $10,000 after the court process had began. Alternatively, i could fight it, and the cheapest lawyer would be on the average of $15,000 by the time it is all over. Obviously, not a "poor boy" option. And since it is a civil case, i am not entitled to a court appointed lawyer. So the only option left for me is to fight it myself. Which, if any of you have ever looked into the paperwork involved in a Federal Civil Case, looks like i have just over a snowball's chance in hell. So if i go to court and loose, by law, they can take what little i have, and then some. One option that they could take is garnishment, and being that this is a Lawsuit for damages, they could take a chunk of my pay check for the next 25 years! I only make $12 an hour now, and have a wife and 2 kids, so this is not a good thing for a person who is just barely making it. This Lawsuit is designed to crush people like me so that people who have the money to pay the ransom, will do so.
  • More DirecTV Abuses (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @12:28PM (#6686887)
    This site [geocities.com] provides full disclosure of exploits that allow an attacker to "hijack" your DirecTV, cancel your service, change your service options, view information about the equipment you have in your home, and so on. DTV was notified [geocities.com] of this back in April, but they haven't done a damn thing about it since.
  • Re:Too bad (Score:2, Interesting)

    by n0cturnal79 ( 690290 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @03:57PM (#6688938)
    As i've stated before, I have not Pirated DTV's signal, or modified any of their hardware in any way. And they are not sueing me for pirating a signal, I am being sued for purchasing a Smart-Card Reader. That is all. . . If we follow the same logic with other laws than I could also be convicted for every traffic violation that owners of the same model of car i drive, have commited. And I will never pay them off for something that i have not done. . . . I was only showing what kind of options that they are "giving" to people to get out of the case. . . . And as for the local news, they ran a story on the DTV cases a few months back, and said that it "Was no longer in the viewing publics interest." Good thought tho. . . . . For me the worse part of this whole thing is the way I now feel about the country and legal system around me. I once believed that people could not be falsely persecuted, and that everyone has the right to legal representation. It seams that both were illusions of false justice, created by a bloated government, which is ran by thoughtless businessmen.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @11:00PM (#6691974)
    Check out the numbers. 9k suspected pirates, 11.6M subscribers. Theft rate: less than 0.1%. Ask any retailer how fscking good that number is. DirecTV has NOTHING to complain about.

    I cancelled my subscription. I've been a customer for many years, but never again.

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Working...