Slashdot Mirror

While I don't agree with DirecTv's business practices they are completely within their legal rights. DirecTv piracy tools were cheap, easy to setup, and accessible before the release of the HU card.

Here's my story: I was curious about trying HU emulation, bought some equipment, but never invested the time or money into getting a working system. When the feds raided the company I purchased from I received a letter from DirecTv asking for $3500. I retained a lawyer but the reality of the situation is that settling would be cheaper than going to court. Just owning the equipment is a crime due to our DCMA laws, legally it doesn't matter if you pirated it or not. The same week my local newspaper reported on the front page that about a dozen individuals were being sued by DirecTv for piracy -- it even listed their names. Needless to say, I settled. Most of the people who bought normal ISO readers/writers from the same places selling enumerator boards and the like should not be surprised. Few of these people have a legitimate reason for owning the equipment. The big difference between criminal and civil suits (like the ones DirecTv is perusing) is that the burden of proof rests on YOUR shoulders.

What's worse, is that the hackers have realized that so long as they don't confess, DirecTV doesn't have enough evidence to win most of the lawsuits they're filing.
Where do you check your facts?? DirecTv has won many of the cases they brought to court. While some sites (www.legal-rights.org) tend to emphasize only the favorable rulings, other (more objective) sites show DirecTv is winning most cases brought to court. Trust me, I did hours of research due to my own legal situation.

...read my post from last week for more ExpressVu insight. Note this will probably be the last time I discuss them.

BTW: The story on those units is there.

>I thought TV Ontario was privatized by the Mike "The Knife" Harris?

Good question. I don't know if it was because the station is boring as hell and I haven't tuned into it for at least a decade (although I know it's still there).

If it is, that's great. Just the behemoth (CBC) to go, then. Well, there's still TeleFilm Canada and a few others, but you have to start somewhere.

>DirecTV isn't available in Canada anyway

Huh? Sure is! My meter picks up the signals strong and clear. The signals boom into Ontario far stronger than the "legit" ExpressVu does.

In fact, for the longest time, their 800 numbers were working in Canada. Odd, huh?

>Typically, an American company partners with a local Canadian company to enter the market, and even then, yes, the channels carried are limited by the CRTC and the channels themselves.

Yes. ExpressVu buys CRTC laws, too, you know. Of course, the "ethnic cleansing" laws of the CRTC are something that is hotly debated, and, in the eyes of most other countries (apart from Iran, Syria, and Iraq -- are there others still practicing ethnic cleansing of the airwaves?) are absolutely wrong.

Now the Liberals have created team Canada to assist small business with exports, and who have the Liberals named as chief of team Canada? Why, BCE chairman Lynton Wilson. Surprise. Surprise. And who has contributed over $70,000 to the Liberals in the past two years? BCE. Surprise. Surprise.

>Everytime a cable channel is carried in Canada, the original channel must pay extra for their new Canadian viewers to the studios & producers. Currently, the way American specialty channels get around this is by forcing the Canadian cable companies to negotiate with the studios directly. That way A&E can come to Canada, but they don't have to fork out an extra dime for airing rights of certain movies in Canada. Thus the occasional blackout.

Yes, that is known. Also what is known is that DirecTV was far more than interested in joining the Canadian market legally if it weren't for our ethnic cleansing laws. In fact, DirecTV has had "Possible Canadian Subscribers" on their subscribers list for years, happily. They are willing to deal with Canada, tonight, if it weren't for our total lack of interest in Free Speech for television stations.

Also, 4DTV systems have been available in Canada (and never prosecuted) for the longest time, carrying almost identical programming to DirecTV, but requiring a cumbersome, and, for most, outlawed 6 foot dish. Therefore, I feel quite confident in saying all the "deals" needed with the other channels have been worked out.

So, it isn't the footwork involved. It's the laws. Laws that ExpressVu buys. DirecTV would find it too hard to compete with a company which is largely owned by the political power of Canada.

Of course, let's not forget how the CRTC stole people's satellite dishes without even making them illegal. The CRTC is not a corporation to look up to in any manner.

If you didn't have access to cable tough, you can't watch anything. Well a lot of people didn't agree with their ruling. Who were they to tell people what they could watch on TV. So the CRTC decided to get a bunch of ole' boys together and round up these self proclaimed "illegal" dishes. After all its OK to steal other people property as long as the government does it right?

* - By ethnic cleansing I mean cleansing the airwaves of all ethnic programming for 35% - 50% of viewing time. Pretty simple use of the most obvious words describing the situation, really. For some government comment on the issue, check this out.

RCMP? Bah! They're *WAY* too busy arresting people for competing with them on pirate US Television and bringing their own personal Mary Jane to deal with something as unimportant and piddly as a few million dollars and sliming the government with egg-on-the-face.

For an instructive comparison, take a look at the recent DirecTV fiasco and the class action suit going on in relation to it.

I'm sure there are loads of actual pirates getting swept up in that 'sting', but a number of dolphins are getting caught up in the tuna net.

The thing that I found interesting (especially in light of the use of words in this forum such as extortion, barratry and racketeering) was that they've settled on extortion as the grounds for the suit.

If the circumstances are similar here, you'd have to be served a threat by SCO and pay the money to be a plaintiff in a class action suit. They'd be fair targets then, but of course the dire projections of SCO's demise (likely true if their company's inflated skin is as thin as it seems to be) makes a class action suit moot... right at the point where we'd have muscle as end users.

Of course, most of us don't have a clue about how one would go about sitting down, making the calls, making the case, etc. I think we need an FAQ from someone wise in the way of the courts :)

There's plenty of precedent for class action suits against copyright offenders, but I don't think any kernel contributor wants their life turned upside-down, no matter how noble the cause. Would they be able just to be 'named plaintiffs' in a suit that's pretty hard to attach hard damages to?

The really funny thing is that you can legally use their signal because DirectTV is not a "Lawfull Distributor", they cannot hold you liable for stealing the service. It's like someone stealing stolen property. The "victim" can't really get anywhere with the courts, because he shouldn't have had it in the first place.

Would be easy to send out 5 million letters demanding $3500 & all your hardware or they will sue you for copyright violation.

It's working wonders for DirecTV.

If it's in the air, it's out. There's no way you can honestly enforce this, at least not in Canada. Why? It's illegal for them to broadcast in Canada (for whatever reason); Canadian judges have ruled that it's not illegal to decode these signals since they don't offer them.

If your phone is hardwired and you make the effort to ensure it's fine, then police need a warrant to tap it. If you are using a cell phone, they don't. If you leave your curtains open, it's not illegal for the police to look in. It is illegal for them to use alternate imaging equipment which views wavelengths that'll pass through most visible-light opaque material, as was ruled.

Once again: if you are broadcasting a signal of some kind, or emiting reflected waves that you are not taking the effort to not transmit via curtains or using wires, you have no legal equivalnce of wired security, and are doing so at your own risk. Due dilligence is important.

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 (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/ 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

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

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?

There are only two sat companies in Canada recognized?
Canada doesn't recognize Direct TV

Here's another article
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.

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?

There are only two sat companies in Canada recognized?
Canada doesn't recognize Direct TV

Here's another article
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.

DirecTV is SUEING people for mere possession of smartcard technology equipment. And how do they prove you possessed it? They use the records seized from smartcard technology websites and state that proves possession and usage.

What they do is they are forcing innocent people to settle ($3500) because the cost of litigating to prove innocence costs a lot more money ($5000-10,000+).

DirecTV claims if you call them and deny using the equipment for signal piracy, they will dismiss the suit, but that is pure crap.

Lots more info here.

>If that's the case, then why do people need to pirate Windows to get a job as you suggested before?

Because the want the same "leg-up" that everyone else has. Perhaps need is too strong a word.

>You can have an interest in whatever the heck you want; there are no laws against that. Pirating satellite TV is probably illegal, even if you're in Canada, and definitely unethical.

You can consider it unethical. I don't.

Here's the law at the time:

9. (1) No person shall
(a) knowingly send, transmit or cause to be sent or transmitted any false or fraudulent distress signal, message, call or radiogram of any kind;
(b) without lawful excuse, interfere with or obstruct any radiocommunication;
(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;
(d) operate a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c); or
(e) retransmit to the public an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c).

At the time, as you can see, you were required to be a lawful distributor to have protection against having your signal hacked. DirecTV/Dishnetwork/whoever were not lawful in Canada, and therefore not protected by this legislation.

BTW: I can't do that anymore because the Supreme Court redefined the definition of lawful (only in Canada can the Supreme Court basically re-write a law -- So lame, it's beyond definition) to mean anything that is lawful in any country. Technically that means that if sealand beams a pirated, but encrypted, signal to Canada, Canadian citizens wouldn't be able to legally turn them in. :-)

>You can have an interest in whatever the heck you want; there are no laws against that.

Yes, there are. That's the problem. It is illegal for me to watch TV with too low an amount of Canadian content in Canada.

BTW: During the time it was legal to pirate American TV, it was still illegal to pay for it. So, is it unethical for me to have an interest in foreign cultures, in free speech? That's the real question you have to ask yourself.

Piracy isn't always unethical.

What really grates my nerves is that Free Speech TV is outlawed. Isn't that a twisted way for a government to operate!

>If that's the case, then why do people need to pirate Windows to get a job as you suggested before?

Because the want the same "leg-up" that everyone else has. Perhaps need is too strong a word.

>You can have an interest in whatever the heck you want; there are no laws against that. Pirating satellite TV is probably illegal, even if you're in Canada, and definitely unethical.

You can consider it unethical. I don't.

Here's the law at the time:

9. (1) No person shall
(a) knowingly send, transmit or cause to be sent or transmitted any false or fraudulent distress signal, message, call or radiogram of any kind;
(b) without lawful excuse, interfere with or obstruct any radiocommunication;
(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;
(d) operate a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c); or
(e) retransmit to the public an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c).

At the time, as you can see, you were required to be a lawful distributor to have protection against having your signal hacked. DirecTV/Dishnetwork/whoever were not lawful in Canada, and therefore not protected by this legislation.

BTW: I can't do that anymore because the Supreme Court redefined the definition of lawful (only in Canada can the Supreme Court basically re-write a law -- So lame, it's beyond definition) to mean anything that is lawful in any country. Technically that means that if sealand beams a pirated, but encrypted, signal to Canada, Canadian citizens wouldn't be able to legally turn them in. :-)

>You can have an interest in whatever the heck you want; there are no laws against that.

Yes, there are. That's the problem. It is illegal for me to watch TV with too low an amount of Canadian content in Canada.

BTW: During the time it was legal to pirate American TV, it was still illegal to pay for it. So, is it unethical for me to have an interest in foreign cultures, in free speech? That's the real question you have to ask yourself.

Piracy isn't always unethical.

What really grates my nerves is that Free Speech TV is outlawed. Isn't that a twisted way for a government to operate!

For *some time now*, DirecTV has been actively pursuing the legal bullying of end users who have done nothing more than purchase *any* smartcard related equipment, regardless of actual use of proof of illegal use.

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. There is a wealth of information here.

>Do you own a national broadcasting station? Wow..

Nope, however I do run a radio show; and the radio station generally could care less about CANCON, except when they're being inspected by the radio gestappo, at which point the rules are pasted all over the station to "remind" us.

Oh, and here's another winner: It's a college radio station (of course) -- guess who got a letter from SOCAN stating they haven't paid fees to play the station? Yes, the local student association. They have a live feed from the booth (not even going through the airwaves), are about 50 ft. away from the radio booth, and SOCAN wants to extract money from them. Totally insane.

>Not enforced. Now if you try to sell equipment to watch foreign sattelite that's a different matter.

Haven't checked in a while, have you? ;-) There's been a whole pile of major busts over the past couple of months.

How's this for help. After Bell bought out the supreme court they've been getting the RCMP to prosecute people left and right. There's probably a good 100 cases in wait right now. And besides, what makes one such a horrible person when they sell people the ability to watch foreign signals? I mean, Bell themselves did it all the time. You didn't think they incinerated all those grey-market receivers they got as trade-ins, did you? :)

>Hmmm... I missed that one. Care to provide a link?

I wish I could. Next time I'm in the radio booth I will write down the exact paragraph and name of the law for it, though. I just don't have it memorized, and it's hard to find online.

For reference, it was this law that got howard stern warned and (probably -- I don't listen to the station) removed from Q107.

>Ever visited a site that popped up a porn banner? If the subject is under 18, you can be charged with child-porn possession (even though you can legally have sex with them, the age of concent is 14).

I know, wacky, isn't it? How about this? I would have mentioned that but the maturity level of the trolls here usually makes it a bad idea.

>The first one only affects broadcasting and the second one is not enforced.

The second one is enforced, though. Only it is enforced selectively, which is probably worse than doing it 'round the clock, because it is uesd as a tool to limit people's speech rather than a tool to keep the airwaves "cleansed" of swearing.

As far as the first one only affecting broadcasting, I think older copies of my scanner frequency handbook (from Haruteq) explained that anyone using anything that emits radio waves is a broadcaster (like your cellphone) and has to follow most all of the CRTC's laws. At least listening in to FTA transmissions hasn't been outlawed yet (just wait for that to happen, though).

>Versus reporting instances of legally pirated software?

If you laughed at that, you aren't Canadian.

>Smartcards are not easy to crack, which is why they are so useful in secure transactions

I guess that's why there's no satellite piracy anywhere. Because smartcards are so hard to crack.

Every single attempt I've seen in the past year (how long I've been doing it, legally) to stop people hacking the smartcards for various satellite systems has been countered in under 24 hours. DirecTV (for example) knows how completely screwed they are, so they are planning to bring out a new P4 card! Anyone want to take bets as to how long it will take before dealers will be re-programming these babies? I'd say 2 weeks. Maybe a month.

And that's just for TV... imagine if hacking cards could give you entirely new life! Pfft... there'll be hackers up night and day to crack it!

>But, the same thing can happen to TV now if it all goes free

I seem to recall a strange time... I think they called it the "60's" "70's" or "early 80's", I can't remember which. At that time all TV was free to anyone.

I don't recall this being seen as a serious impediment to making money, however. I'm sure there were different economic forces at play then. Like giving the people what they want and then they'll watch the ads. You know, like ads that aren't so loud you wear out the mute button, or so long you can make a pizza while you wait for them to end, or so obnoxious you turn to another station each time they advertise the latest in feminine hygiene problems? And programs that are popular, action packed, and varied, like A-Team, Airwolf, Mission Impossible, and MacGyver; in contrast to being nothing more than offensive standard grade pablum, like AllyMcBeal or [insert latest crappy sitcom ripoff where some lame ass actor comes out of the closet here] or [insert stupid show where everyone risks their life for a crappy prize] or [insert latest "real life" TV show]? I seem to recall that at this time music video station showed (gasp!) music videos! And that 2 hour movies weren't cut to 1 hour!

>Hey, who needs cable? You can just get stuff off the 'net.

Who needs cable indeed? My BUD dish picks up all sorts of commercial free wildfeeds (makes Enterprise worth watching!) 100% legally. My 40 ft. offair antenna picks up the other 50% of programming worth watching. And you legally can watch DirecTV for free in Canada, for the 1 or 2 stations that you just can't get (period -- they aren't on Canadian satellite, or Canadian satellite only offers an inferior version -- thanks CRTC!).

I haven't paid for programming in months, and I've been doing it legally. I even get the same selection of programming that most in North America enjoy, probably more (I get the Nasa channel...). Not that it matters much, because I won't be watching a big name network TV show at all this week (they put the SuperBowl on instead... I guess that is actually popular, though, so I can't complain too much about that). Maybe I'm just living in a time bubble where TV doesn't suck?

Even if they try, precedence has already been established in the Quebec Superior Court that DirecTV's signal is "public domain".

DirecTV signal is public domain in Canada

"On Tuesday, May 29, 2001 The Honourable Judge Mr. Pierre Tessier of the Québec Superior Court dismissed the Crowns appeal in the case of Al Gregory who was acquitted by Mr. Justice Sanfacon of the Quebec Provincial Court last year under section 9 (1) C of the RC Act. Mr. Justice Pierre Tessier completely understood the issues in this appeal and stated very clearly that as DirecTV® are not a "lawful Distributor" in Canada and should not be broadcasting here, that Signal was in the "PUBLIC DOMAIN"".

Since the purpose of the laws appears to be to protect the interests of Canadians...

Protect which Canadians?

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission protects the Canadian cable companies and satellite TV companies from competition by U.S. satellite TV companies. CRTC regulations prevent the Canadian public from seeing many U.S. channels like HBO that are only available from DirecTV.

The debate is over who will deliver U.S. television shows to Canadian homes. Right now the law favors Canadian corporations. Perversely, this approach creates a market for pirate decoders of DirecTV, which the law was designed to exclude.

It's not stealing in Canada...

Actually, it's a matter of dispute. Recent court rulings have supported pirating DirecTV signals in Canada. However, the Crown is appealing the decisions.

The law seems fairly clear:

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;

(d) operate a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c); or

(e) retransmit to the public an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c).

In any case, the main issue is whether it is ethical to pirate DirecTV even if there is a loophole in Canada's perverse telecommunications laws.

There is a similar question of whether it is ethical to even pay for DirecTV in Canada since DirecTV cannot be legally sold in Canada. The practical reason is that DirecTV can disable illegal receivers. Their measures might now work against the device described in this article.