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 (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, Informative)
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: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: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.
SOME information wants to be free (Score:3, Funny)
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.
BOrn stupid and sadly with the ability to speak (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Sad (Score:3, Funny)
How does one design a device for hacking a satellite feed without actually hacking the satellite feed?
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: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: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.
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:2)
The delivery mechanism is flawed. They're beaming it right into my house.
If they don't want me to listen, then stop beaming!
There are more secure delivery methods, such as that used by cable.
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: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: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.
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:2)
It is perfectly legal to own/build your own cable descrambler. The moment you turn on the signal to your house without the cable companies permission is when you violate the law. If the cable company turns on the signal to your house accidently, you do not have to pay for it. This applies to any device that runs into your home(ex. you no longer have to own a phone sold/leased by the phone company to use the telehone service).
They are sending a signal through my home and body, certianly I have a right to determine what that signal is?
There business method is flawed, we should not have to pay the price for there poor business model.
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:3, Insightful)
Logicial flaw... (Score:2)
So by that logic, Jon Lech Johansen and Dmitri Sklyarov are criminals too, right?
I don't think so. If all these guys did was create the tools, then they're no more criminal than Jon and Dmitri were. Now if they were using those tools for copyright infringement, that's another story (and that's what they should be prosecuted under).
The problem with the DMCA is that there's already laws against copyright infringement. It's redundant and goes a step (or a mile as the case may be) beyond what is needed.
-S
Re:That's nothing new... (Score:2)
OK, fair enough. Let's look at the categories of info that are illegal to give out. First, information that is dangerous to national security (treason). No doubter there. Second, information that isn't true, as stated, can be fraudulent. Information you have been trusted with (insider trading, release of trade secrets, etc) can be illegal too. Also, information you steal (opening mail, Mitnick-ing).
However, this is the first time I can think of that you can be busted for releasing information that is NOT dangerous to the country (Oh God! DirecTV has been h4X0r3d!!!), is NOT false, and NOT entrusted to the person releasing it - ie, he figured it out on his own. And really, this is NOT stealing, again in the sense he figured out on his own (he didn't hack them to steal the plans). Note that he doesn't actually have to take the SERVICE to get busted here - although that's a different argument, too.
This is pretty scary to me.
Can anyone think of a prior situation that fits these three scenarios?
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.
Good intentions don't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
They wanted their MTV (Score:4, Funny)
well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well.... (Score:2)
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!
Re:well.... (Score:2)
Re:well.... (Score:2)
- What is "satellite cable", and
- how does reveiving a satellite signal cost them money?
Note that I don't entirely disagree with your general opinion that signal hacking is illegal, but neither do I agree with your reasoning.Slim? (Score:5, Informative)
I have internet access (dialup from home). Some people only have it at work. I do not have cable access. I must use Satellite TV to get anything. I don't understand why you think that Internet access and cable access always go together. Everyone with a phone can have internet access....
T
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:well.... (Score:2)
Yeah, the United States seems strangely unenthusiastic about people from other countries just moving in, for some reason.
It's still stealing.
Oh, I never said it wasn't. I just don't feel bad about it.
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: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:You are all making a stupid argument (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
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: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...
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?
IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
They didn't descramble a signal. They made a tool that does, just like gun manufacturers make guns. Gun makers don't know the intent of the user, which may well be illegal, but they are (rightly) allowed to manufacture the tool anyway.
Well... (Score:2, Funny)
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?
I doubt it (Score:2)
Re:I doubt it (Score:2)
The moment that tried to redistribute the copyright material, then they have done something wrong.
What if In played loud music in the street, then charged you for listening to to it, would you be obligated to pay? of course not.
Re:for a change.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't think so (Score:2)
The DMCA makes it illegal to distribute the design of such a device for digital content. That's one of the things that's so scary about the DMCA -- if someone is using a particular encryption scheme for protecting digital content, then designing an attack on the scheme, or perhaps even discussing algorithms for an attack on the scheme, is illegal.
Other places (Score:3, Informative)
Urrm... (Score:5, Funny)
Satellite TV transmissions are analogue, aren't they?
Not quite (Score:2)
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:Not quite (Score:2)
Since all TVs in use right now take analog in (most *only* take analog in) DVD players do a digital to analog conversion internally. This is the heart of the "analog hole" that the MPAA and RIAA want Congress to legislate out of existence.
Ummm... No. (Score:2)
Both DirecTV and Dish Network transmit digital signals.
Re:Urrm.uhh ahhh ohh ooohhh uuhg ughahh ahh.. (Score:2)
Slashdot DMCA Discussion (Score:5, Funny)
Passionate exhortation that information shouldn't be illegal!
Wishful thinking hope that case may lead to overturning of DMCA at higher court level!
Trollish assertion that pirates and thieves get the punishment they deserve!
Copyright violation does not equal theft!
Reference founding fathers' views on intellectual property!
Kumbayah, fellow 'dotters, kumbayah.
Re:Wouldn't it be nice...? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:They go through the air! (Score:2)
I should be able to do anything with something that passes into my house or my body.
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.
So? (Score:2)
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.
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.
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:Different Opinions (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
What!? (Score:5, Funny)
If they don't want me to pirate their signal, why did they send it to me?
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!
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.
Re:Half a million in damages? (Score:2)
That's going to come pretty damn close to half a million.
But, then again, this could be like the stats of drug busts. "They were producing $1,000,000 of marijuana a day"... Yeah, right, if they went out and sold it all a gram at a time.
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!
Excuse me, (Score:5, Funny)
If sat providers don't want me to mess with their signal, they shouls cease to radiate it on my house in backyard!
This is not like I am tapping into their cable.
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.
Book 'em (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine prison life for them. Once word gets out that they gave millions of viewers free Lifetime, they're goners.
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.
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.
Gimme my brick back! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gimme my brick back! (Score:3, Funny)
Since I had access to the brick, I was able to patch it, but I will only release the patched brick under the GPL. Fortunately, the brick no longer crashes windows.
If I return your brick and you use it, that building will clearly be a derivative work. If you lock that derivative building, I'll be forced to file suit against you for DMCA and GPL violations.
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
In other draconian news... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In other draconian news... (Score:2)
Overreaction and FUD. Hacking? Sheeeeeit.
I guess it could be argued that figuring out how to get your Winmodem to work could be construed as a violation of the DMCA, since it is obvious the thing was never meant to be tampered with in the first place.
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........
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:What the hell was I thinking yesterday (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you are a peace officer, you don't need to establish probable cause in the sense that you described it. If you can persuade a judge/grand jury/cop that there was a clear and present danger to your life and limb, then you stand a good chance of not having to stand trial for assault, but it is not a guarantee!
Unless you were in a position to make an arrest or issue a warrant, "Probable Cause" is irrelevant. You, as a private citizen, don't need ANY cause to be suspicious. On the other hand, police are supposed to have a specific reason for any suspicion they raise against an individual. Trying to light a bomb, or holding a gun to someone's head are dramatic examples, but decent.
Not the ONLY thing DirecTV is using DMCA on (Score:5, Informative)
DirecTV has been engaged in a sort of legalized extortion scheme against people who have purchased smartcard equipment from raided dealers in the USA, undoubtably as part of a plea bargain with such dealers. Yes, these dealers marketed their products towards DSS, but standard ISO smartcard equipment? Come on. The interesting thing about buying products from these dealers was that smartcard programmers, emulators, etc from them was MUCH cheaper than buying from a non-DSS oriented business. To put things in perspective, the average asking price to settle out-of-court with DirecTV is to the tune of $3,000 to $4,000.. again, for the mere purchase/possesion of smartcard equipment.
If you are interested in these cases as well as other satellite related legal issues, please visit http://www.legal-rights.org [legal-rights.org]. There is a wealth of information here.
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.
FSCKTV (Score:2)
DTV (Score:3, Interesting)
Get punk rock!
Black Monday [blackmonday.info]
The FBI Affadavit for the mpik arrest (Score:5, Informative)
Note that these were not small time players. This guy had $133,000 in DSS related monies flying through his Paypal account. (Also note that Paypal sent the FBI a transaction log, same day service, with no warrant. A sobering reminder that eBay/Paypal does not care about your privacy.)
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:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Craig
Re:Same thing Bush (America) is about to do to Ira (Score:2)
Who has the most (media-freindly term coming...) Weapons of Mass Destruction?
The US.
Is there any difference?
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.