Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


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

DirecTV takes on PirateDen.com 375

Posted by CowboyNeal from the legal-head-butting dept.
IgD writes "Pirate's Den is a DirecTV hacking website based in Canada. The site features a very busy chat forum where 'hobbyists' research and discuss ways of hacking satellite TV. The site makes money by selling advertisements and subscriptions to the chat forum. The owner claims all he is engaging in is free speech. He does not appear to directly market circumvention devices. DirectTV doesn't agree however. They apparently are demanding the owner close the site, transfer the domain and pay a settlement fee. Another interesting twist to all this is the fact that DirecTV is not legally able to market its services in Canada. You can read more about this legal battle at FreedomFight.ca."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DirecTV takes on PirateDen.com More

DirecTV takes on PirateDen.com

Comments Filter:

  • Ah ha! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by All Dat ( 180680 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:15AM (#6084504) Homepage
    So the game is afoot. I love it. Necessity breeds innovation, so it'll be fun to watch how Pirateden responds. Lets get it on!
    • Oh silly, it's asatellite not afoot.

    • What they forgot to mention (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dr. Bareback ( 644802 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:13PM (#6085137)
      I have been following DTV news since "black Sunday" back in 2001, and all I have to say at this point is that pirates should be afraid, very afraid. DirecTV has seen piracy numbers skyrocket in the past few years as hundreds of (mostly American) dealers have sprouted up to sell pirate cards. Slowly and meticulously, they have begun to fight back and the tide is quickly turning. For instance:
      • DirecTV has shut down dealers. From the Great White North to Florida, DTV has sued and prosecuted anybody involved in selling programmed cards or smartcard equipment. (Often this equipment has many legitimate uses, but that is not a concern for them, is it now?) Dealers, wary of spending 20-30 years in prison for a victimless crime, turn over their customer lists as part of their settlement. Which brings me to my next point:
      • DirecTV has sued end-users. You can see them brag about it here [hackhu.com]. They presume guilt and ask the end-users of perfectly legitimate smartcard equipment to pony up $4000 or risk being sued in Federal court. The vast majority of these users, lacking backbone, settle. This makes a lot of money for DTV and allows them to expend even greater amounts of resources suing more innocent end users.
      • DirecTV has shut down informational sites. Starting with blatantly money-grubbing sites like decodernews.com (which sold subscriptions for hacking software) and progressing to the milder sites like hitecsat.com, they have stemmed the flow of information on conditional access technology. Their goal is to squelch all public discussion of smartcard technology and to keep the populace ignorant of how these systems work.
      • DirecTV has introduced two unhackable access cards. They have introduced a P4 card and a "P4.5" card, neither of which are vulnerable to any of the security holes that were exploited in their P3, P2, and P1 cards. The P3 was an exceptionally strong card, protected with encrypted ROM, encrypted EEPROM, encrypted RAM, an ASIC designed by Ron Rivest (of the RSA fame) with 256-bit stream ciphers, and strong physical security. The P4 is proving to be even more invincible than any other access card in existence; disassemblies posted at dssunderground.com point to the use of 3072-bit Diffie-Hellman private keys and dozens of booby traps hidden in the code. It may be virtually impossible to develop a commercially viable crack for the P4 and P4.5. Since the P3s are scheduled to be swapped out by the end of August, a lot of pirate TVs will be going dark very soon.
      • DirecTV is introducing new receivers. These new receivers (which are denoted by an "RID" number on the box) are specifically designed to detect hack attempts and to notify DTV of any anomalies. For instance, hackers attempt to "emulate" an access card with a PC, by setting the card slot serial baud rate to 19200bps instead of the usual 57600bps, to compensate for latencies introduced by the software. These new receivers detect this change and "flag" it as abnormal; DTV can detect this condition and send a technician to "check" on the setup, just as cable companies do when they see an unfiltered pirate box on the line.

      So, the moral of the story is, don't bother getting into this mess (I'm glad I never did), because the game will be over soon.

      • Re:What they forgot to mention (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @02:06PM (#6085823)
        So I fail to see the reason that DirecTV is so upset about information boards as in the topic.

        If their new cards are so secure, just swap them out, invalidate the old ones and move on.

        If on the other hand the cards aren't quite as secure as you think they are, perhaps they DO have reason to be worried...

        N.

      • Re:What they forgot to mention (Score:4, Insightful)

        by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @06:29PM (#6087035) Journal
        DirecTV has introduced two unhackable access cards.

        Wow! Now that is funny!

        These new receivers detect this change and "flag" it as abnormal; DTV can detect this condition and send a technician to "check" on the setup

        I don't see how... DirecTV is NOT two-way. The only way to send info back is through the phone-line, and you'd have to be a complete moron if you are hacking the DTV, and still keep the phone-line plugged-in.

        Personally, I think the best way to do this is to get a DVB card for your PC, and work on the decryption key. NOT using DirecTV's reciever is the only way to do the job without the slightest risk of getting caught, or having your equipment exposed to the countermeasures.

        Once again, PCs put the power back in the hands of the public.

  • Well that's clever. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pinguu ( 677142 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:17AM (#6084509)
    'hobbyists' research and discuss ways of hacking satellite TV

    And they think police don't monitor the site? duh...

    • Re:Well that's clever. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Funksaw ( 636954 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:25AM (#6084553)
      Actually, it's not illegal to hack American satellite TV in Canada, while it IS illegal to pay for it.

      So even if police monitor the site, they've got nothing to worry about. In fact, the entire site deals with how one can better obey Canadian law.

      I love Canada. I plan to move there in a few years.

      • Re:Well that's clever. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:17AM (#6084799)
        Well here is the great part about Canada....

        Directv wants here, however they would like to own the rights to the "sky". The CRTC has said no, and now Directv is just a little on the upset side. It was told to them that if they could not block the satellite signal to Canada, well too bad, so sad, so to speak. It is not illegal to have Directv, just to sell it, and that being on a federal level, and that must be enforced by the RCMP, and they have more important things to be concerned about then who steals whos TV. Sorry for the run on sentence there.

        However there is a catch, companies like, Rogers Cable, Bell Canada, (Bell ExpressVU) and Star Choice, (another satellite provider)would like it made completely illegal on all levels, so they can increase their share of the market. However, if it was made illegal, would I go out and pay for TV, sorry folks no chance :)

        In regards to paying for it, yes, if you have Directv, and pay for it through an American account, that is considered to be the gray market and yes, that is illegal, however, when you can take it for nothing, then why not ??

      • Re:Well that's clever. (Score:3, Informative)

        by shepd ( 155729 )
        Sorry bud, but the other year the Supreme court "re-read" section 9.1(c) of the Radio Telecommunications Act that allowed hacking of non-authorised services to mean authorised by anyone (which, technically, means that if you write "authorised" on the piece of paper, it's authorised).

        It sucks, but it's true. When it comes to big business (ie: Bell ExpressVu) the Supreme Court has no problems rewriting laws, rather the letting the government do it.

        At the moment the law resides in this domain:

        - Being ca

  • Transfer the domain? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 ) * on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:18AM (#6084516) Homepage Journal
    Why would DirecTV want the domain? They have no rights to it. Now who's the pirate?

    Or are they just throwing salt in the ground so that nothing grows back? (Anyone get that vague reference?)

  • Ya know why they want the Domain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:20AM (#6084528) Homepage Journal
    Then they can miror the site and let unsuspecting people continute to use the site.

    Then they'll sue verizon to tell them who they are.. ad nauseam

  • Great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mossr ( 72445 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:23AM (#6084538)
    Honestly, this is not the best use of the internet that I can think of. Sites like this will only aid those people/companies that are trying to ban everything under the sun with stuff like the DMCA.

    I don't think it matters that DirecTV can't market their stuff in Canada - the Australian courts have ruled that online material is published in the nation of the reader (google for the recent Joe Gutnick defamation case heard in Australia about an online article published by a US newspaper). If the US courts see it the same (or DirecTV takes 'em on down under), they probably won't stand a chance (that's assuming it goes to court, obviously).

    Personally, I think that running a site like this (and making money off it, too) is pretty darn irresponsible of the guy running it. It's kinda like waving a red rag at a bull, only you're a little kid that's tied to a stake in the ground and the bull is more of a homocidal maniac with a penchant for child-slaughter.

    • National Sovereignty (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pgrote ( 68235 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:36AM (#6084602) Homepage
      What you forget it that the internet is the place where national sovereignty melts away.

      Did you know that Direct TV cannot be bought in Canada due to law?
      Direct TV in Canada? [direct-tv-portal.com]

      There are only two sat companies in Canada recognized?
      Canada doesn't recognize Direct TV [legal-rights.org]

      Here's another article [legal-rights.org]
      that explains the situation.

      What you have is one country setting the laws for itself, but the internet crosses all national lines.

      Instead of saying this is what the DMCA will be used for focus your efforts on the fact that the DMCA should be modified. Canada is doing us a favor.

    • Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:37AM (#6084603)
      What the site seems to be about is free speach and unpopular free speach. If there is anything that interenet should be used its for the promotion of the free exhange of ideas.

      I understand the point about companies using things like this to further justify the DMCA, but in truth it works the other way, just as easily. The more companies abuse the act, the more likely it is to be overturnded.

      The problem is not the DMCA, its the arrogant attitude of large comapnies, that feel no one should have a right to step on their toes. Even before the DMCA you can be certain that Direct TV would have launched wave after wave of lawsuits against the operators. The point would have been to harrass them into submission.
    • If the US courts see it the same

      It doesn't matter how a US court sees it. A US court could impose a death sentence on the owner of the site and it won't accomplish squat without cooperation from a Canadian court.

      Oh, I'm sure there are treaties and agreements between the US and Canada, but short of launching cruise missles a US court has no more power than Canada grants it.

      the bull [DirecTV] is more of a homocidal maniac with a penchant for child-slaughter

      That sounds like the sort of animal that needs
    • Well, Australia is one of those countries that respects other countries. The US courts, however, have unilaterally given themselves jurisdiction over the whole world.

  • Maybe someone can help me out here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xebikr ( 591462 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:27AM (#6084560)
    I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is located in my own yard, using equiptment that I own, that would just go into the dirt anyway, could be considered theft. Cable theft I can understand. They have physical equiptment that they own that is used to get the signal directly to my tv. The satellite signal is going to be there whether I use it or not.
    • Because by taking that signal you interfere with the mind control waves, thus condeming some poor unfortunate individual to a life of free will and independent thought
    • I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is located in my own yard, using equiptment that I own, that would just go into the dirt anyway, could be considered theft. Cable theft I can understand.

      That's sort of my position on this too... if they don't want me intercepting it, then don't BEAM it at me. However, I must say, if you want to put your attitude into action, at least don't a) put up a web site bragging about it and b) don't use the word "pirate" in your domain name.
      • That's sort of my position on this too... if they don't want me intercepting it, then don't BEAM it at me.

        So you're OK with me putting all your cellphone conversations online? After all, they're broadcast radio signals, using encryption (very weak encryption, at least in GSM's case) to control access. If you don't want me listening in, don't beam it at me!

        However, I must say, if you want to put your attitude into action, at least don't a) put up a web site bragging about it and b) don't use the word "pir

        • Under Canadian law it would be illegal for you to divulge what you hear.

          It would not necesarily be illegal to listen to it.

          (It is actually illegal to decode encrypted signals; but the law is written in such a way as to cover legitimate broadcasters in Canada, it is not actually written in such a way as to cover foreign broadcasts without broadcast privledges in Canada. (Not kidding.)).

    • Re:Maybe someone can help me out here... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:40AM (#6084623)
      Oh please. That tired argument is so dead. While you're at it, do you mind if I eavesdrop on your cell phone conversations? After all, I'm using my own equipment to intercept signals passing through my property.

      If you don't pay for the service, you have no right to use the service. Enough said!
      • Oh please. That tired argument is so dead

        That argument got 8 hours of sleep last night and woke up this morning fresh as a daisy. And if you wanna intercept my phone calls, go right ahead.
      • "That tired argument is so dead."

        It's not dead. It's Canadian.

    • ...Because you (via your government) sold the right to do that. You can change the contract - just vote.

      T
    • I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is located in my own yard, using equiptment that I own, that would just go into the dirt anyway, could be considered theft. Cable theft I can understand. They have physical equiptment that they own that is used to get the signal directly to my tv. The satellite signal is going to be there whether I use it or not.

      That's one argument. DirecTV's counterargument would be that it's licensed that portion of the radio spectrum from the government specifically for t

      • That's one argument. DirecTV's counterargument would be that it's licensed that portion of the radio spectrum from the government specifically for the broadcast of encrypted television signals, and therefore, if you intercept and decode those signals then you are violating their product and the law.

        No, this is satellite. Directv has a number of channels (or their own satellite - I forget which) that they transmit on. You can't use it because you haven't paid for the privelege. The second part of your arg

      • Actually, I don't like the fact they are using my property to propegate their signals. Those signals go through my house, furnature, my body, etc. I don't like the fact I don't know fully what they are doing to me or the things on my property, and frankly, if it's on my property, radio signal or otherwise, it's mine. Just like if my neighbors kid threw a frizbee into my yard and decided never to ask for it back.

        The idea of sanctioning off entire specturms of the radio spectrum is absurd. You're basic

    • I'm sure glad you're not an ISP... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:02AM (#6084725) Homepage
      I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is located in my own yard, using equiptment that I own, that would just go into the dirt anyway, could be considered theft. Cable theft I can understand. They have physical equiptment that they own that is used to get the signal directly to my tv. The satellite signal is going to be there whether I use it or not.

      I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is running through my own routers, using equiptment that I own, that just pass through as they would anyway, could be considered theft. Hacking the server I can understand. I have physical equiptment that I own that is used to get the signals directly. The data stream is going to be there whether I duplicate it or not. /sarcasm

      Give me a break. You have as little right to hack satellite transmissions as you have to spy on military communications, cell phones, wireless keyboards, mouses and headphone, garage door openers, the EM emissions of my screen or anything else that happens to run across your airspace.

      Kjella

      • Re:I'm sure glad you're not an ISP... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:40AM (#6084947) Homepage
        Give me a break. You have as little right to hack satellite transmissions as you have to spy on military communications, cell phones, wireless keyboards, mouses and headphone, garage door openers, the EM emissions of my screen or anything else that happens to run across your airspace.

        Well I hate to break it to you, but according to the Canadian CRTC, I have exactly those rights! If it's in the air it's fair game...why do you think the military encrypts their shit? It doesn't become illegal until I tell someone else about the contents of what I intercepted! Interception is not illegal in Canada...OTOH dissemenation and distribution of intercepted content...well that's a different matter.

      • Re:I'm sure glad you're not an ISP... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arkanes ( 521690 ) <(arkanes) (at) (gmail.com)> on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:58AM (#6085053) Homepage
        Amusingly enough, your sarcastic reply is actually correct. It's certainly legal to snoop traffic that comes over your own routers.

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Benedryl Patanol ( 649091 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:28AM (#6084567)
    Seems like DirecTV should just hire a bunch of these people, they know what they're doing.
  • So what exactly is a chat forum? Something like a car bicycle or a can bottle?

  • My life is complete (Score:4, Funny)

    by IgD ( 232964 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:49AM (#6084656)
    My Slashdot submission was posted!!!!!!!
  • Wasn't it just 17 months ago that the Black Sunday happened where the cloners got their technological comings up? At the time there was a hugh 'go DirectTV' for running the technology and staying out of the much less certain legal system?

    In this turn of events, all that will win are the suits.

    -- Multics

  • Umm... Excuse me.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by keirre23hu ( 638913 ) <j2k4real@gmail. c o m> on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:52AM (#6084671) Homepage
    but in past cases where domain had to be transferred, was it not because the domain name itself violate someone's IP rights, i.e. registering VinceCarter.com or WarrenSapp.com and trying to make the individual/company/entity/whatever pay exhorbitant fees for the domain. I know the federal government can and does do this (force domain transfers in certain cases), but since when did owning the rights to a product give a company the same rights as law enforcement... yeah yeah yeah, I know, RIAA.. blah blah blah.. also.. Im looking at this [www.cira.ca] [cira.ca rules for registering .ca domain names] and fail to see how Directnic can legally take over the domain anyway.... I could see how they could have a case for having the site shut down, but not much more... but then again I A N A L
    • Just a guess since IANAL, but perhaps it's an interpration of the law that allows law enforcement to seize assets purchased with the proceeds of illegal activity, or the law that allows law enforcement to seize property that is used to commit a crime. In those cases, though, the government takes the property (and later auctions it off), not a private company.

  • Next on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Geekenstein ( 199041 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:52AM (#6084673)
    DirecTV sues Slashdot.org under the DMCA for linking to an illegal site...

    Go ahead. Laugh. I tells ya it just might happen!

  • Is it illegal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by charlie763 ( 529636 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:56AM (#6084690)
    ...to have a location like a convention center or something where people can talk about whatever they like or specfically hacking? No.

    Would it be illegal for this convention to charge an enterance fee? No.

    Would it be illegal for the convention to charge companies a fee to advertise on it's walls? No.

    Can an American company tell a Canadian convention center what it can or can not do? No.

    The question then remains; does it matter weather this locations is physical?
    • It's not illegal to have a big convention where people can talk about whatever they like.

      It would be illegal, on the other hand, to have a convention specifically dedicated to people trading tips to murder to their neighbors.

      Intent does matter.
      • I know that there are hacking conventions that take place. People from the government even go to them to see what goes on. As far as a convention about murdering people would not be illegal. The law (in the US anyway) is all about intentions. It would be illegal to have a convention to plot someone's murder. However, it would not be illegal for people to gather together and talk about the coolest ways for an indevidual to kill another. I think it would be kind of like when people get together to talk about
      • No, in fact it would not. I could talk about killing neighbors in the abstract all day long and not be doing enything illegal.
        If I start saying that I'm going to kill Bob and Sue Worthright who live next to me, I'm making threats.
        2600 talks about blackhat hacking, phone phreaking, etc, and is a perfectly legal magazine you can pick up at any bookstore. It talks about targeting specific stores, etc. There is no law against it. Networks are not people, and there are no laws against speaking of breaking in
      • Nice. You're comparing decryption of unauthorised transmissions from the states with murder. That's *real* smart.

  • There's two sides to every coin (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jdhutchins ( 559010 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:56AM (#6084691)
    It all comes down to the fact that if you're watchign their signals, they're not getting paid for it, and that causes a loss of profits. I don't know how their profits are doing, but if a company is starting to lose money, their first choice is to blame someone else and sue (SCO anyone?).
    This is probably a gray area in the laws in the US. I'm sure some of the signals are copyrighted, so you're supposed to pay to use them. On the other hand, the signal's right there, so why not try to get at it? It's almost parallel to running Linux on the XBOX. It's there, why can't you do it? Because the company that created it doesn't want you to do it. That's why they want the DMCA.
    The DMCA basically says that "if a company wants your money, they have a right to it", and here, DirectTV thinks they have a right to some money. Outside of the DMCA, however, I don't think this is well-definied in law, but IANAL.
    On the other hand, don't go making a website devoted to cracking the signal. That's just asking for trouble. It'd be like if I started a website on how to pick car locks. It may be legal, but it may not be. It'd be different if they had made a name other than "Pirate's den", which is just asking for legal trouble.

    • Re:There's two sides to every coin (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:57AM (#6085049) Homepage
      ...they're not getting paid for it, and that causes a loss of profits.

      No it doesn't. Their signal is falling into Canada, where it is illegal for Canadians to purchase their signal therefore are not losing any more than they would if no-one in Canada tapped into their signal. The satellite transmitter cranks out the same signal whether 1 million people are watching or whether 2 million are. There is NO loss of profits because they can't make a profit in the Canadian market anyway! In any case, I have a hard time swallowing the "piracy equals loss" argument unless it can definitely be shown that piracy is encouraging individuals who otherwise had intent to purchase the service to help themselves for nothing. In fact the Canadian DirecTV situation is probably one of the best illustrations of a case where "piracy equals loss" is false.
    • As had been said before, it's different in Canada. They _cannot_ be paid for the signal by Canadians; there is no loss of profit involved (except perhaps a _potential_ profit by the other companies authorized to operate in Canada).

      On the other hand, the original copyright holders may be able to legally sue DirecTV for distributing material to Canadians and not paying them royalties :) Depends on the contracts, etc.
    • It all comes down to the fact that if you're watchign their signals, they're not getting paid for it, and that causes a loss of profits.

      No. That is not a fact at all. That is just like the RIAA claiming a 'loss' of billions and billions. The assumption that a copied mp3 = a lost sale is just plain false. Likewise, a watched, un-paid-for signal != lost profit. Especially in this case where you can not buy the service in the country hosting the forum.

      -Ted

    • DirecTV doesn't buy my super-widgets, and I'm not getting paid for it. This causes a loss of profits on my part. I want to blame someone else, and that someone else is them. Can I sue, and do I deserve a big judgement?

      DirecTV's problems stem from a bullshit business model. They need to kill the subscription thing, and sell access cards. Figure out how much to sell them for, so they make a profit, and be done with it. They are the only people who can realistically make these (even emulation requires a real

  • DirectTV piracy has always been popular here (Score:3, Informative)

    by Agent Deepshit ( 677490 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:57AM (#6084693)
    Pirating DTV in particular is very popular in Canada, atleast around here. Canadian television isn't as bad as it used to be (We have uncensored Trialer Park Boys filmed locally here (Search Kazaa for those) airing on Showcase). Our Canadian equivalents to DTV are horrible. Every American channel has a Canadian counterpart that most ppl agree is awful.

    There are A LOT of people cracking these cards for many people here on a regular basis. So many of us pirate DTV it doesn't feel wrong. Whether it is or not I could give a fuck...

    I remember Black Sunday when all the cards went down. Since then it has been more difficult to keep cards up and running.

    DTV should bring a legit service to our country (Some say our Gov't wouldn't let them in...which is understandable. The CBC was created to keep Canadians from becomming "too American"). I bet a lot of people who are tired of paying a lot of money to have their cards re-activated would turn to the legit service if it was a resonable price.

    Unless of course the porno channels are pay-per-view, then DirectTV would surely loose all their suscribers to pirates.

    • DirecTV would be allowed to sell service in Canada under these circumstances:

      - They offer 4 times more Canadian stations than they do american stations.
      - 75% of their American stations are blacked out for Canadians, and they offer all the current Canadian stations.

      I might be off by a few percent on those numbers, but that's about the sum of it.

      There's another point to this fight: Canada is a highly multicultural country, but the CRTC has created a melting pot TV, Canadian-only service. I know some

  • What nobody seems to be saying (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @10:57AM (#6084700)
    The DMCA is not law in Canada, and thus it doesn't matter if it is a circumvention device.

    - jdrake
    • However, thanks to the use of the website by Americans in America, that may be a moot point. There are many debates going on about this not only in courts themselves but also in the legal discussions by organizations such as the American Law Institute (which produces the guides to US law employed by lawyers around the country to stay updated on changes in law and judicial decisions), not to mention academica et al.

  • Free speech in Canada? Unlikely... (Score:3, Informative)

    by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:03AM (#6084729)
    If you need the perfect example of that, you need not look any further than the police crackdown on protesters of the 1998 APEC summit in Canada [tv.cbc.ca]. The quick summary is that protesters were sitting on a road where the president of Indonesia would be driving through when the cops came up to them, told them to leave. Literally the next second (the video proves this), one Sgt. Stewart of the Royal Canadian Mounted Chimps pepper sprayed the entire crowd. Many of the protestors had to be hospitalized. It is truly one of the most disturbing police actions in Canada in recent memory.

    My point is, if people who lawfully assemble and then are given no realistic opportunity to disband when the police/government decide that they don't like what they've seen (because of the economic advantages that would've come due to Indonesia's human rights abuses no doubt), and the subsequent inquiry into the matter is basically a cover-up exercise by the pseudodictatorship in Canada with no punishment for any of the RCMP in question, I doubt the courts in Canada will rule any differently in this case here.

    Top that off with mandated minimums of Canadian programming content for each station by the CRTC, and you see that Canada really isn't the place for free speech at all.
    • Yeah, but if Celine Dion came out and said she were ashamed that Jean Chretien came from Quebec, she'd be unlikely to be called Un-Canadian, have her CDs trampled by bulldozers, and receive death threats.

      Our Prime Minister can strangle his own detractors, thank you. (I tried to find a link with the picture of him doing that, but couldn't... oh well)
      • Actually I suspect if Celine Dion came out and said something negative about Chretien the rest of the country would simply agree.

        (Why is it, in my mind that he has only made good decisions in the last year or so.. now that he doesn't give a shit he makes more decisions for the right reasons... although, I still dislike him.

  • Other DirecTV Initiatives... (Score:5, Informative)

    by wumarkus420 ( 548138 ) <wumarkusNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:06AM (#6084742) Homepage
    In case others didn't know, DTV (aka Dave) recently shutdown 63 dealer sites in a huge bust. You can check out their own enforcement page at hackhu.com [hackhu.com] (a former info site). They are also suing end-users at an alarming rate based ONLY on shipping records for standard ISO smartcard devices. It has actually gotten pretty out of control with intimidation letters and complaints in the amount of $10,000. Lots of people don't even know they've been sued (many people have moved in the 2 years it's taken DTV to sue them). People are getting default judgements against them for the full amount request by DTV. Florida has been particularly hit hard with THOUSANDS of cases. I urge everyone to stay informed about this, because once again, they use the veil of the DMCA as justification for their efforts. Some of these people are being sued for buying a completely legitamate ISO7816 device that can be used for millions of other things than just DTV hacking. Check out http://www.legal-rights.org/ [legal-rights.org] for more info on DTV legal info. I also have a forum section dedicated to the DTV legal battles with up to date lists of who has been sued and in what state. There is no discussion of hacking there.

    forums.wumarkus.com [wumarkus.com]

    To anyone who has received an intimidation letter or summons, GOOD LUCK!

    • No doubt DirecTV got a list of the shipping records and cross-referenced it to prior customers. A bit suspicious to cancel your sub shortly after buying such a device, wouldn't you think? I doubt 99% of those poeple are just innocent hackers.
  • Ok, frankly i cant see how DirectTV is loosing money up here in canada. They dont sell a product up here for them to loose. It would prolly cost more for them to figure out a way to block their signal from getting onto canadian soil then anything else. It shouldnt be the responsability of a Canadian entity to stop americans from viewing the site. Does china shut down sites hosted in the states that talk bad about china? No, they setup a firewall to stop chinese citizens from accessing the site. American cor

  • how the hacking "started" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:47AM (#6084985)
    It used to be "legal" to buy Direct TV in Canada several years ago. many peopel who winter six months of the year in Florida woudl simply bring thier systems back to home to Canada with them. Other people, often those who lived in the country where no cable TV was available, who drive into the US (approx: 90% of all Canadian live within 200 miles of the US boarder)and buy a setup, and start payments direclty off thier credit card. Everybody turned a blind eye, and while there was some hacking going on, it was just easier to pay for it out right. When the government in Canada made it illegal to buy Direct TV, thousands of Canadian with US satelite systems were screwed. Remember too, that the small dish systems came out int he USA about 3 years before a similar system was ready in Canada, so there was demand bu no supply. After "banning" Direct TV, that's when the hacking industry came out full bloom. the problem is, there are more hacked cards in New York City alone than in all of Canada, and if the hacking was going on only in Canada, Direct TV probally wouldn't care. But too many of the hackers make thier real money selling to the USA, which really PO's Direct TV (and right fully so). The interesting thing why many peopel get the US dish in Canada is for programming not available in Canada. For exmaple, the CRTC here in Canada willnto allow Fox News here - talk about censorship! Whatever you think of Fox news, the point i, we can watch Sex TV openly on local TV, but the O'Reilly report ot too dangerous for Candains to watch. Go figure? Oh yes, the other channel "banned" in Canada - Turner Classic Movies. :)
  • Though I don't think I have a right to Bell or Stars signals even though they come down on my property thats because the Canadian Government has licensed them. I get a better education and health care because of them. Same is true with cell towers and radio stations. True the go through my airspace but they contribute to our social programs. DirecTV doesn't though. In fact I think they should be fined on behave of everyone in Canada. Through out the case and fine them millions of dollars for not keeping the

  • whew (Score:3, Funny)

    by bilbobuggins ( 535860 ) <bilbobuggins@@@juntjunt...com> on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:56PM (#6085427)
    thank god this is the only web site online that has a forum

    once DTV shuts these people down there will be nothing to worry about

  • Ah.. Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @12:57PM (#6085436) Homepage Journal
    Funny how the media people only tout the right of free speech when it benefits THEM.. if it doesnt, or is against them even in the slightest, then they cry foul..

  • From the site:
    H Card Status: Shutdown | Music Channels Only
    HU Card Status: Hacked | Activation, 3M, Emulation Working
    P4 Status: Currently Unhacked | Subscription Only

    I received my P4 cards last October, and I'm assuming most others have received theirs as well... why not just turn off the HU cards?

  • Canadian Radio Communications Act (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @01:49PM (#6085727) Journal
    Canadian RadioCommunications Act

    9. (1) No person shall
    (c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;

    10. (1) Every person who
    (b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,

    (2.1) Every person who contravenes paragraph 9(1)(c) or (d) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.

    Exception

    (2.3) No person who decodes an encrypted subscription programming signal in contravention of paragraph 9(1)(c) shall be convicted of an offence under that paragraph if the lawful distributor had the lawful right to make the signal available, on payment of a subscription fee or other charge, to persons in the area where the signal was decoded but had not made the signal readily available to those persons.

    May I direct your attention to the word LAWFUL. In every court case in Canada save one, distributors of DTV receivers, cards, etc. won handily because their activities involved a service that has no lawful distributor in Canada. DTV is not licensed in Canada and never will be due to our strict Canadian content laws (some call it censorship but what it really amounts to is a quota of domestic TV over foreign broadcasts, the content is not at issue per se).

    Now, the Supreme Court threw a curve ball when it ruled in April 2002 that the law provided a blanket prohibition on decoding signals from ANY source. Prior to this the law was in favor or decoding signals from someone other than a lawful source as every court decision came down in favor of the satellite dealers, so the decision was a bit of surprise. The ruling was limited in scope to the communications act itself not the act under the Charter of Rights, our version of the Bill of Rights, and that issue remains to be ruled on.

    So, I would submit that while the decoding of DTV in Canada is technically illegal (for the time being pending the constitutional outcome) talking about decoding a signal is a far different matter. Contrary to what anyone here has said, Canada has very strong free speech protections. Under our Charter of Rights any interference with your right to free speech must be justified and the onus is on the government to prove that its intentions are not contrary to a "free and democratic society", limited to the dimishment of certain act, proportional, etc. The bar is quite high. DTV starts out in a losing position since by the interpretation of our Charter by the Supreme Court, Pirate's Den is protected speech, in fact all speech is protected. If you read our Supreme Court decisions they say this in pretty much plain english. Of course I am not a lawyer, but even a lay person can read a court decision and understand what they are saying. We shall see...

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close