Slashdot Mirror
Hacking DirecTV over TCP/IP using Linux
siliconshock writes: "It seems that you can now connect your Directv receiver to a Linux box and then using TCP/IP to connect accoss the Internet and emulate a valid DirecTV account enabling all channels.... Oh yea, and of course it open source :)
Full story. To dtv hackers this means that you dont have to have an access card at your physical location! It can be located accoss the country, or better yet in another country all together." This seems one more step toward the fabled digital convergence, too.
You're right, it's not hacking; it's engineering. You have no idea how the whole process works, so don't bother trying to understand. As for stealing: Since i'm in Canada (DSS has no rights in Canada), and the microwaves happen to come into my backyard, it's not stealing. In fact, DSS should pay Canadians royalties for transimitting the signal in Canadian Air space.
Yeah but apparently you can't fucking read. He CANT pay for the signal as that is illegal in Canada. He is IN Canada. Just because its illegal to decrypt the signal in the US does not mean its illegal to do it in Canada, or anywhere else. The fact that he wants the service but BY LAW CANNOT purchase said service they have to do what they have to do. How many times does this have to be reiterated before it sinks into your thick fucking skull? ~blacksixx
Uhh, so subdividing the FREAKING PLANET ITSELF into private property is OK, but the electromagnetic spectrum, oh no, that belongs to all God's children!
DING! You have won our special Non-Sequitur Of The Day award.
From Websters:
And since "...it's legal in Canada...", anyone in Canada has the right, if not the permission, to intercept, decode, watch, record, fold, spindle or mutilate any signal transmitted from the USA.
So it's very hard to see how the word "stealing" could possibly apply.
Another tack. I don't live in Afghanistan. I don't have a beard. Does that make me a criminal?
Your Affectionate Cousin
AC
Let me pick apart 9c:
:-)
:-)
"subscription programming signal"
Is (verbatim):
"Radiocommunication that is intended for reception directly or indirectly by the public in Canada or elsewhere on payment of a subscription fee or other charge"
This signal is in no way inteded directly or indirectly for Canadians to enjoy in any way shape or fashion. The elsewhere part is somewhat enforceable however, so we need to examine the rest of the sentence.
"network feed"
Is a feed distributed to affiliates (DirecTV cannot do this legally) or distributed by a lawful distributor (which DirecTV is not) to a programming undertaking.
"lawful distributor"
Their own definition states that the company must have the lawful right to transmit and authorize decoding in this country (DirecTV does not).
Without a lawful distributor I think the sentence is nullified. There is no one to regulate the signal, therefore the signal is public domain.
For the heck of it let's see section 4:
We are allowed to have the DirecTV equipment because 4b lets us posess equipment that isn't used for receiving signals of a distribution undertaking. DirecTV is not legally a distribution undertaking, so we may have the equipment.
DirecTV, I believe, for some very strange reason, had their equipment DOC certified (it is supposed to be written somewhere in the manual and it appears in some DirecTV manuals) so the equipment is certified for use here.
Therefore Section 9c does not apply and we can own the equipment. Ask any judge. Infact, ask the one in Quebec that ruled the illicit American transmissions are Public Domain.
You'll also note DirecTV violates section 9b because they use bandwidth in our country (thereby obstructing our use of it) that we do not authorize them to have.
That bill seems a little extreme in parts though. Ever read section 7? Gives me cold shivers to think the Queen of England can tell us what to do still (even when there's no war going on)...
Feel free to disagree with me, I'm open to alternate interpretations -- just make sure they follow the definitions at the start of the bill. Oh, and this isn't legal advice, as I'm Not A Lawyer.
First DeCSS, Napster, and now this. This will do nothing to further enhance the public image of Linux users as lawless criminals and rebels of society.
Yes it is hacking. And it'd a damn fine one too.
Please allow me to explain.
You see, regardless of your beliefs on DirecTV, DSS and the DMCA, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT THE USA. We're talking about Canada.
Canada doesn't have the DMCA on the books. And the DSS signal is probably being illegally broadcast in Canada, which, in case you didn't know, in outside the juris diction of the FCC. So in that respect the signal is fair game to those in Canada.
That simple fact and a couple of Canadian court rulings in favor of the DSS hackers buys a get-out-of-jail card north of the border.
So DirecTV is stealing usable frequency space in Canada, and the Canadians are happily stealing the broadcast feeds off those unlicensed signals.
That seems pretty darn fair.
Moreover, since the DMCA doesn't apply to Canadians. The Canadians *do* have more rights than Americans here. They can distribute any and all devices that circumvent any encryption scheme. Especially those illegal ones that happen to be broadcast over the boarder.
There's also a question of what actually constitutes "stealing". The Canadian hackers did not "deprive" the use of the DSS signal from the DirecTV satellite service. So "stealing" doesn't quite work here. A more accurate statement might be "It's Unauthorized Decryption". Yes it is. And it's also not illegal, at least in canada. But use of the term "theft" here makes one think of a far larger insidious deed than was perpetrated, While free TV is a legal possible outcome, under law, it is not "theft".
And the last thing you were wrong about is the hack itself. Yes, indeed, it's a damn fine hack. This wasn't some two-bit script kiddie reading some t-phile on how the interface worked, no this was a serious piece of reverse engineering. I'll refresh your memory here. A script kiddie, can't by definition write c code. Otherwise he'd be known as a c-kiddie or maybe a "1337" hacker.
So, in the future. Don't play loosey-goosey with the language. 'k?
As cool as it was that DirecTV came up with a neat techincical solution to their problem, you can bet the reason why they did this was because it was a more cost effective solution than sending in the lawyers.
Finally, I'm beginning to see the fruits of all that "trying to make bits not copyable is like trying to make water not wet" talk.
People are finding ways around the arcane protection that these companies think will protect them.
Soon there will be a day when everyone knows that bits are copyable, and the stream/data they combine to create can and will be twisted for individuals personal use. On that day someone will just give up and do the thing that should have been done from day one: keep information free; charge for extensions to that service, like... well stuff that hasn't been thought up yet.
In the meantime learn to program in your favorite language (or C if you don't have a favorite language) and start taking stuff apart, and adding bits to existing stuff. There's enough creative energy out there to create some really impressive stuff.
That way of thinking is like back in the 80s when phreaking and cracking and stuff was fresh and new, that the internet should be shut down... that it should be shunned and it's evil because there are all these illegal things you can learn to do from it... It's silly. There's so much potential for good... but every bandwagon that people get on to do bad things, it's because it makes doing something incredibly easy. And it can be used to ANYBODY's advantage.
Inconceivable!
If you'd like a copy of the source, I suggest you simply email the author and demand it. They have no right to withhold the source since they've used GPL'd code.
(This is, of course, assuming that they haven't negotiated an alternative license from the author of the original project.)
It is a violation of the GPL for pitou to not be released using the GPL.
...now If I could just read Japanese.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
Well, if he's serious about releasing it when it gets out of beta, and if he has a reasonable criteria for that, it's OK. But "out of beta" could potentially mean anything, including "never".
It should also be noted that the GPL does NOT offer an exception for beta or pre-beta code. The GPL requires him to offer the source code for every binary release he does. From a legal point of view, it is not clear whether anyone other than the original author of the GPL'd code would have standing to force him to do it, though.
Of course, since I'm in the US I wouldn't be able to use it anyhow.
gotcha. It really didn't make sense to me when I read it... It all makes sense now!
well people that were running online gambling sites off-shore were still asked to come to court for the 1961 Wire something Act (having to do w/placing bets across Intl lines/state lines). One guy did (from the Carribean) and he was prosecuted.
They still could *attempt* to bust him.
Has there been any attempt in Canada to implement the World Intellectual Property [sic] Organization treaty yet? This was the treaty that spawned the DMCA in the first place.
More porn than I can shake a stick at.
Just someone who badly needs free room and board
and is doing everything he can to get it.
For those morons who think this is legal, you've
been sniffing glue.
i didn't have access to the net in the last 6 months, and i'd like to find out more about that slashdot drinking game. something like this would definitely make our office more productive.
:)
[ so far we have hotornot.com drinking game, whoever calls the closest score on a given girl, tells somebody else to drink, etc]
--- d'oh
there are some interesting xtal radio circuits that are like two sets in one - one circuit is tuned to a nearby strong station solely to get power to run an amplifier for the other set, so you can tune in and amplify a distant station.
Like, I have a nearby station on 1490, can even see their tower, at least 5KW, and can get several volts across a tank circuit tuned to 1490.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Transmitting cell phone calls thru my house, what can be picked up with an old UHF tv tuner, and making it illegal to tune in, is like posting your secret private messages on a billboard and making it illegal to look at it.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
rust and bad contacts can make a rectifier. Some people have heard radio stations coming from old bridges! POW's used to make radios out of razor blades and safety pings.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
To Take:
To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice
You now have that intellectual property in your possession when you should not have, how is that not 'taking'?
Anyway, at a more basic level... the term in question is 'copyright theft'. If you take a copy of someone else's copyrighted work, You *have* denied them of their ability to make the copy for you, under their terms. Surely then then that is theft, even by your definition?
One definition of theft is 'the act of stealing'. If you then look up stealing, you find
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Seems like the owner of the intellectual property is being stolen from, if you ask me.
The creator or owner of the media should be compensated for the effort, time and money that went into creating it. To just ignore that is selfish in the extreme.
Oh, and I find your insinuation that those who consider copyright infringement theft are somehow Nazis utterly pathetic. People always seem to try and make a link to the Nazis whenever their argument is failing... ("Oh, Hitler was a vegetarian, you know..." etc.)
Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder. Simply because someone disagrees with you does not mean that:
.... ;)
a) They are stupid
or
b) Actually they do see things the same way as you, it's just that they pretend they don't for their own nefarious purposes.
P.S. If you really just wanted to pick someone who was well known for their use of propaganda, I hardly think Himmler was a good choice. I mean, if you asked people what Himmler was, are they going to say:
"A Nazi"
or
"A propagandist"
I mean, if you wanna break US law but are an American with a foothold in the state, don't whine when the feds go knocking at your door...
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
The next step:
Everything Over Freenet
Actually, it should be perfectly legal to listen to other people's conversations should be perfectly legal. If they didn't want their portable phone conversations listened to, they should take steps to keep the EMR that the phone uses from spreading out of their property.
There's an old saying that goes something like, "when people shout, it's hard not to listen". It's patently unreasonable to put something of yours in someone else's house and then expect them to not take it. As someone else said, if someone doesn't want me to listen to the EMR coming into my house, they can not send it there.
If I come barging into your house and then carry on a conversation with my friend, are you morally obligated to not listen?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I don't care if it's legal in Canada or not, it's still stealing! This is just one more example of something the media will 'attribute' to OSS and Linux.
Suppose you lived in an apartment overlooking a baseball park and you could watch the games for free out your window while most people had to pay-per-view. Are you stealing? "The media" would say so since they have a vested interest in pay-per-view.
How about if you took videos of the game from your window and put them on your website. I'll bet "the media" have already bought laws making that illegal.
Are you old enough to remember when people would say "It's a free country" and they weren't being sarcastic?
Of course, the next round will be DirectTV's response, which if history is of any indicator, we'll have a lot of smolten Linux boxen (maybe this will help RedHat's bottom line even more?)
No one EVER learns, do they? Or maybe it's just all in fun. More power to both sides, it's been interesting from the sidelines from the get-go.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Jon Johansen probably thought it didn't mean shit in Norway.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This hack was always going to happen. In fact almost any system that uses a conditional access system where the data stream can be accessed and rebroadcast is vulnerable. News Datacom, the company that created the crypto architecture for DSS/DirecTV knew about this vulnerability and it patented what they considered a solution to it. (US Patent:5,590,200 if you want to check it on www.uspto.gov). It is not due to the crypto system being compromised. It is basically a failure in the model. I formulated the original hack for this over ten years ago so it is not as if the designers of the TV encryption systems did not know about it. Regards...jmcc (John McCormac)
how's this for the ultimate catch-22?
there's semi-draconian media laws in Canada set up to prevent Canadian media from being overrun by the U.S media conglomerates. problematic implimentation in places, but i certainly understand the sentiment.
one of the laws is that foreign sattelite broadcasters cannot sell their services in Canada. a judge ruled that since DirecTV's service was unable to be sold in Canada, it therefore had no fair market value. and since something that is valueless cannot be stolen, it's OK to watch DirecTV in Canada for free.
DirecTV can bring up charges against Canadian individuals for violating laws in the United States, but they're not likely to prosecute them unless they come over the border.
This information I learned from speaking to one of the techie higherups at DirecTV.
Just raise the taxes on crack.
How long before the lawyers have their say?
At the same time this sort of hack needs an expert, so it will probably find itself amongst the 'free cable' solution in the back of Popular Science. If DirectTV is smart they will end up finding away that is a bit more difficult to crack (impossible is never an operative term).
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If DIRECTV were smart they would take advantage of this. They too could set up servers, but instead with encrypted connects. All you would need is a phone line and they could have rotating access codes.
Maybe even have a solution where you get the key on the satillite signal, which gets combined with the unit's serial number and then checked at the central - okay this probably wouldn't work but there is an idea trying to break out, it just a little late to be thinking straight.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The services they provide are beamed to you whether you want them or not, they're on your property, so it should not be legal to make viewing the signals, no matter how, illegal.
Old argument, new context. There is legal precident against what you just said. For years people have tried to use the, "The signals are being beamed at me, I have a right to know what is passing through my body." defense when they get busted for using a radar detector in a state (VA, CN, etc...) where they are illegal. The defense doesn't work.
How are Canadians getting DTV receivers and dishes, then? I understand the Canadian law, but it could very well bite them in the tuckas if they don't do more to protect against it. By legally allowing Canadians to watch DTV for free, and not prohibiting the import and sale of receivers into the country, the Canadian government has gone exactly against the law they are trying to uphold. If I'm Canadian, am I going to pay a Canadian cable company (MuchMusic...no thank you) or am I going to watch DTV for free? So, now a major US media congolomorate (well, maybe a mid level one) is stealing customers from a Canadian provider.
for satellite transmissions, there is legal precedence with regards to transmissions being on your property with or without your wanting them to be there; I believe there was a case in which this was the primary issue and the defendant won. A cursory search on google hasn't found anything with regards to it but this discussion has cropped up here on slashdot previously.
.... no smart PVRs for me :)
I think a more complicated issue is that from what I understand (as a non-subscriber) directv content is encrypted? if that is indeed true, then to access those encrypted streams and decrypt them even in an extremely simplistic method could be construed as a DMCA violation. again that beast rears it's ugly head.
I dunno... I'll stick to broadcast analog as long as I can. DVI adapters that encrypt my video to the TV and sound cards that encrypt the sound out put to my speakers is just not where I want to go. I'll stick to just taping things on analog tape and watching them on my 10 yr old VCR that won't ever complain about fair-use abuses or anything at all.
It's like Mr. Weasley said in the Harry Potter books: "Don't trust anything without a brain that can think."
EOM
Ok, I need to say this...
1.) TEMPEST = DoD standard for shielding AGAINST electromagnetic signal interception. It's just a huge bunch of annoying specs for creating giant heavy computers with lots of screws; faraday cages, fibre optic cabling, protected power circuits, blah blah blah.
2.) To intercept your computer monitor signals (and to a lesser degree, your NIC, keyboard, whatever) you'd tune into Van Eck radiation (like the interference generated by your computer monitor.) This really isn't that difficult to do yourself, and in the hands of professionals is very impressive. this would be one of those things you would TEMPEST shield yourself AGAINST.
3.) For that matter, for US Citizens intentionally shielding your house/building/office/equipment to TEMPEST specs is considered a federal crime. That one always made me wonder- why would my desire to shield my house be a major concern and need to be against the law, if it required a warrant to be served to me to search my home? Who's up to what, here?
EOM
You keep using that word "theft".
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Don't you think that "theft" is a tad perjorative?
Why not say "piracy"?
Why not say "pillage, rape, and plunder"?
Have you not been keeping up with the debate over property ownership vs. information ownership?
Been living in a cave for the past 20 years?
Nice troll, though, either way.
You keep using that word "steal".
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Don't you think that "steal" is a tad perjorative?
Why not say "piracy"?
Why not say "pillage, rape, and plunder"?
Have you not been keeping up with the debate over property ownership vs. information ownership?
Been living in a cave for the past 20 years?
Nice troll, though, either way.
You keep using the word "stealing".
;)
Don't you think that is a tad perjorative?
Why not say "piracy"?
Why not say "pillage, rape, and plunder"?
Have you not been keeping up with the debate over property ownership vs. information ownership?
Been living in a cave for the past 20 years?
Or maybe you are just another troll
In the US anyway, totally illegal, and you could tentatively get in DEEP shit for running a server like this.
Yes, people have always done this.. with old dishes it was with modems, before that, just codes faxed over.
I fully support doing cool hacks.. BUT...
This is blatantly 'how to steal DirecTV'. Silly.
Actually, to us Canucks, it's NOT stealing, and here's why.
We are *NOT* allowed to pay for it, and they are NOT allowed to sell it to us, in Canada, therefore, we aren't taking away from anyone's market share.
We are not allowed to buy it IF WE WANT TO. This has been the case with many satellite things in the past; it's not legal for those companies to market or sell their 'product' in canada; this is what makes satellite descrambling of American broadcasts a grey-market business. It's kind of illegal, in that there are laws about descrambling television broadcasts, but on the flip side, those companies cannot claim lost revenue or anything, as tehy are forbidden from selling here.
Scanners with cellular frequencies are illegal *in the united states only*. The only reason many Canadian stores carry scanners that don't have these frequencies as well is because they are manufactured in the states.
It is perfectly legal for us to have unblocked scanners that cover *any* frequencies. The same goes for most of the rest of the free world anyway.
When the cellular companies lobbied to have this chagned here, the CRTC and others said simply (and rightly so) 'the radio spectrum is a public resource, it belongs to the people. We only regulate who can transmit, that's it'
Go check out winradio.com, and look at their models. It's only the US that has to have certain frequencies 'blocked'.
Also, as Canadians, we are *not allowed* to buy direcTV. DirecTV is NOT ALLOWED to sell television to us, they have no license to broadcast in Canada. You are NOT subsidizing anything as a paying customer; we are not part of their marketshare, and not part of their business plan. There is no 'lost revenue', they don't even try to say there is any. They DO NOT CARE. We just happen to be able to pick up their programming.
In order to show theft, you have to show a loss. If someone stole the picture of your aunt martha, even though it has no market value, it has a demonstratable value to you.
In the case of TV signal though, nothing has been 'taken away', and the only way, I believe, the company in question could show 'theft' is by showing lost profits. In this case, they have no license to sell or broadcast in Canada, therefore, there are no lost profits.
If you don't want us to receive your signals, don't send them into our country.
Yes. You are right. Two points to consider.
1) ucsimm does not make it that obvious what license it is under. I had to hunt a bit. That's not an excuse, just a point.
2) It doesn't mean he now HAS to relase his code; it means he has to release it if he distributes this. He can always decide, upon reflection, that he does not like the terms of the GPL and stop distributing it.
3) What he is enabling people to do is legal where he is. It's hardly pircay when you can't buy it in the first place.
4) Exactly what does 'based on' mean? How much of it is based on? Are portions of the code GPL? Does he have permission from Daniel Drotos to do this? If so, the GPL is moot.
Also.. and you know, I know I'm asking for it here.
Regardless of how much we want it to, the GPL is still just a contract. Some people will ignore it. If they are a company, maybe we can do something. IF its' one rogue hacker, what are you gonna do? Sue him? Gimme a break.
Decss was first on Windows and so was Napster.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Stealing is what happened when the big corporations sucked up all of the spectrum.
IIRC, the original telecommunications act of the 20's OUTLAWED encription of the public airwaves. This was the rule until satalite broadcasters got burned by all of those old, huge home satalite dishes of the 70's. They used their clout and money to get the laws changed in their favor. Just because someone manages to get a law changed does not make the consequences just. There is a growing disparity between law and justice.
The frequency spectrum was a vast public "commons" until it was auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
The problem with your argument is that people who've actually looked up the meaning of Theft and Stealing know that the words do not mean what you think they do...
... morally wrong. They may be unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work, that'd make them ... unauthorized copies.
Theft is when you unlawfully deprive the owner of property.
In both of your cases, the company involved wasn't deprived of any property.
So it's not theft.
Now, hear me out. I'm not going to make a moral statement here (You can read my other posts if you wish to know my stance.) I'm merely correcting your use of the word.
These things may (or may not be, to you) morally wrong. That would make them
Nothing more, nothing less.
Theft of Service requires reducing the capacity of the service provider to provide that service.
Psychologists can say what they will, but it's obvious to anyone with a clue than only an idiot would take their morality from law. It's supposed to go the other way, public morality defines law.
Enjoy your stilted little life. I'm sure you'll follow all the UCITA rules... Make sure to never sell a copy of Windows, MS says you don't really own it. And never fast-forward through commercials on a DVD, even if you have one of the players which doesn't enforce that. After all, having that player is almost as good as stealing from the MPAA...
I've never understood how people like you could reconcile something being legal, and thus moral, for a period of time. Then, as soon as a law is passed against it, it suddenly becomes immoral. How exactly does that work? When the MPAA buys a few legislators, does that define universal morality?
Also assuming you already have a binary. There
is no right to source without already owning
the binary.
And how exactly is this not describing the situation *today*?
I only get about 500 channels of nothing.
The guy is intentionally bypassing a valid content access mechanism, and sharing the tools (although it's perhaps telling that the code is in binary form only - no source) so that any script-kiddie-wannabe can plug a few cables together and get 'free' TV. And, what, he's some kind of hero?? Give me a break.
Like Napster, this whole DTV cracking subculture tries to put on a "it's only for testing.. dude" face, claiming fair use or intellectual curiosity, but like the old Monty Python bit, it always seems to be accompanied by a big "wink wink nugde nudge, know what I mean?". Ridiculous. The simple truth is that all those "test" cards are out being used to watch TV that the holder has NO LEGAL RIGHT to watch. This hack, while ingenious, is no different. It's very simple, really. DTV offers a service. That service is offered in exchange for something of value (namely, money). If one does not/can not/refuses to participate in one part of the exchange, they should not be taking advantage of the other. No pay, no play.
The Canadian nature of his citizenship will not shield him from the corporate entertainment empires. Just ask Jon Johansen - and he was on the other side of the pond. They will be howling for Mr. nerg343's blood, and they'll likely get it too, along with anyone silly enough to think they could get away with this once it went public.
And, lest we forget that this does nothing to refute Mundie/Ballmer/Gates assertion that everything Linux is evil, cancerous and unamerican. MBG have not, so far, allowed facts to impede their gospel, and this DTV hack will probably fuel that even more. "See? Didn't we tell you? Next thing you know, they'll be taking apart (gasp!) an UltimateTV box and threatening our innovative intellectual properties! The horror!"
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
Several apartments (and the rooftop) have a lovely view of the ballpark and the Cubbies home games.
Never before on Slashdot, when read under the rules of the Slashdot Drinking Game, has there ever been a single story that could get someone as staggerring drunk as this story can.
DRINKING WORDS: Hacking, DirecTV, TCP/IP, Linux, emulate, Internet, open source, digital convergence, access card, and if you count compound words, Siliconshock, the submitter.
Gives "buzzwords" a whole new meaning.
(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;
DirecTV (US) has no authority to allow, or disallow their signal from being decodedin Canada. They are not authorized to operate here. The current interpretation is based on the potential to authorize the signal. As long as there is NO potential authorization (noone to seek it from) it is not illegal to decode it. The laws intent was to protect broadcasters in Canada. And yes, Canadain courts do look at the intent of the law when necessary.
It is considered "fair use" because Canadian courts have taken the very sensible position that if you cannot buy the service in Canada then calling in "piracy" is meaningless.
How is that "sensible?" It's not as though DirecTV doesn't want to sell it. The Canadian government prohibits them from selling it, in order to try to protect Canadian broadcasters. However, it's not exactly easy for them to avoid broadcasting their satellite signal to Canada while broadcasting to the US. The Canadian government has basically made it impossible for DirecTV, putting them in a Catch-22.
Yes, actually it is so, since the entire law hinges on the "lawful distributor", which DirecTV isn't. It is not lawful for them to distribute the signal in Canada, therefore no law is broken, period.
-- iCEBaLM
Umm, what makes you think that someone making illegal software for stealing is going to obey the GPL?
1. It's not stealing in Canada as DirecTV cannot be sold in Canada by law, and therefore has no "Fair Market Value". Something which has no value cannot be stolen and is therefore legal to circumvent.
2. The author is Canadian.
-- iCEBaLM
Did they even have an official Linux client?
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
Broadcasting something over DirecTV doesn't make it public domain, the hacking is just considered a "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
It is considered "fair use" because Canadian courts have taken the very sensible position that if you cannot buy the service in Canada then calling in "piracy" is meaningless.
Individuals could not record something and create a derivative work based on it. They can only *watch* the channels.
Depends if Canadian copyright law more closely follows that of the US or that of the UK...
Does this mean Microsoft Canada can violate the GPL because it is "valueless"? Honest question.
Only if the Canadian courts agree. The issue with DirectTv isn't someone thinking it's possible it's an application of applicable case law.
Why should service providers have to pay to protect their data from stealing? It's like saying that I'm responsible for not using a more solid door lock if someone is breaking into my house.
The analogy falls down. In that what broadcast companies are doing would be akin to pulling your property into the hands of very burglar.
It comes down to an issue of what is being sold, if they were to be seen as selling a service for decrypting their signal then another receiver is not "stealing". Looking at things this way the provider always have a commercial advantage, since they control the encryption. A bit like other applications trying to read MSOffice files.
Recent court rulings have supported pirating DirecTV signals in Canada. However, the Crown is appealing the decisions.
The link points not to a judgement so much as the judge saying "you are wasting my time". Also the "appeal" sounds more like an attempt at "judge shopping">
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.
The Canadian judiciary do not appear to find the laws perverse. Since the purpose of the laws appears to be to protect the interests of Canadians they can't be called "perverse" either.
The other guy's right, the DMCA doesn't mean shit in Canada as long as we're not serving US customers.
So long also as you don't employ US citizens or open an office in the US. (Quite likely even if these are for a different area of your business.)
As a bonus (if I remember correctly), anything broadcast through the air (DirecTV for example) is pretty much open for exploitation here so it's perfectly legal to pirate satellite up her so far as I know.
So long as you cannot legally purchase the service in Canada. In which case the Canadian courts will prosecute. Also that you are not a citizen of anywhere which applies laws to its citizens extrateritorially (and cannot claim political asylum in Canada.)
This thing is probably illegal because it lets N receivers use one card. If it was 1:1, though, one could argue that you're just loaning out your license when you're not using it.
Except that a licence is an abstract entity, a card is a physical entity. There's no reason for there to have to be a 1:1 mapping of licences to cards.
Several licences can apply to one card.
How is it a "right" to use a service that is far from cheap to provide?
So what consumers have no obligation (at least in a capitalist) society to ensure that a supplier's business model actually works.
If every country felt you could just steal it, then it wouldn't exist.
If you send send your signals to some country then they can do what they like with them. Anyway it would be considerably more enpensive to broadcast only to the USA. Tricky to avoid Canada (especially in you want to get Alaska as well) even though most of the border is a line of latitude. Even harder to miss Mexico where a good chunk of the border is a river.
I am more and more amazed at the number of people who apparently believe that the mere act of spending money entitles you to a return on your investment.
:)
Maybe there needs to be a forced reading of "Capitalism for Dummies"
Let's get this straight: No one "deserves" money just because they put their money, time, or effort into a project.
Also if your entire business is based around one "project" then it more vulnerable to fail. Especially with such things as making "loss leaders" a critical part of the exercise. (e.g. the iopener and cuecat).
But also changes in technology can rapidly render something obsolete. So yesterday's "good idea" may be todays "utter waste of time".
This is what we are seeing, IMHO, in the media distribution and publishing industry. The cost of duplication and distribution is rapidly falling. Which also means the cost of entry is becoming low.
DirecTV DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SERVICES in Canada, and is polluting the airwaves with rogue signals which are not authorized.
If you want to take it further you could say that DirectTV is preventing Canadians from making use of a set of frequences.
A more accurate statement might be "It's Unauthorized Decryption".
Again there is the issue of jurisdiction. Since DirectTV has no authority over a Canadian citizen (in Canada) in the first place. So the unauthorised bit is utterly irelevent.
The guy is intentionally bypassing a valid content access mechanism
No the "content access mechanism" wasn't valid in Canada.
and sharing the tools (although it's perhaps telling that the code is in binary form only - no source) so that any script-kiddie-wannabe can plug a few cables together and get 'free' TV.
Canadians do have general freedom of "speach", so there is no problem here.
The Canadian nature of his citizenship will not shield him from the corporate entertainment empires. Just ask Jon Johansen - and he was on the other side of the pond.
It's a double edged sword, if US corporate entertainment can "have a go" at Canadians and Norwegians then they can also counter sue. You also might like to consider how much "American Television" is actually made in Canada.
If I copy something from you which you value at $0.00 and the judge convicts me of stealing $0.00 and tells me to repay you 10,000x the cost and pay a fine of 1,000,000x the price and go to jail for 300x the price it still adds up to zero.
Maybe a US judge would do this. The Canadian judges appear to be a whole lot more sensible here and dismiss the case. Maybe if it happens often enough they'll start considering the prosecution in "contempt of court".
I've heard Canadian judges tell the RCMP off for wasting our money by attempting to prosecute people for crimes that don't exist on our lawbooks. I believe a Quebec judge said that all American DSS in Quebec is Public Domain.
Note that this is judges not simply a single judge. The entire Canadian judiciary appears to agree. Thus even appealing dosn't seem very likely to change anything.
He is IN Canada. Just because its illegal to decrypt the signal in the US does not mean its illegal to do it in Canada, or anywhere else.
In most situations people are subject to the laws of wherever they happen to be at the time. The unusual exception is where they are also subject to the laws of whereever they are a citizen of. So if he were a US citizen then he might be doing something wrong, as he's a Canadian citizen there is no issue.
The fact that he wants the service but BY LAW CANNOT purchase said service they have to do what they have to do.
Also the fact that there is a law which prevents the service being legaly sold in Canada means that it is easy for Canadian judges to dismis thes kind of cases.
And stealing American satellite TV is perfectly legal in Canada.
Except that it isn't "stealing". A better analogy would be someone making use of unsolicited goods.
The supreme court recently ruled that it is illegal for the police to drive down the streets with infra-red scanners looking for drug houses. This does not mean that infra-red scanners are illegal in general - only that use of them by police would be inadmissible as evidence.
Or possibly even they can only actually use them for evidence when they actually have some kind of warrent. Rather than for "trawling".
Theft requires that the victim be deprived of an item. When something is replicated, this clearly does not happen.
Thus the definition gets expanded to include potential revenue.
But in this case the potential revenue is zero anyway....
Information, especially in digital form, has a zero cost to copy, and does not deprive the "owner" of their copy. Companies decide to spend alot of money setting up systems to throw these bits at us. No one forces them to go into the business of copy bits around, they do it of their own volition. This is like selling salt water by the ocean. Except that it's stupider.
The problem here is that publishers (far more than people who actually generate the information in the first place.) Are trying hard to prop business models which rely on copying being difficult and expensive.
Having has some sucess in lobbying for laws which artificially treat trivial to copy data as identical to a physical object which is hard to duplicate.
Even where a physical media is involved the cost is small. e.g. photocopying a book generally costs more than buying a copy, but copying a CD is a lot less than the retail price.
There are two ways things could go. Either we get more and more draconian legislation passed. Though at some point lobbying needs to be extended to police and courts or the result is laws which just won't be enforced. Or different business models need to be found. This is frightening for the current megacorps and some of them might not survive any change. Especially since both the producers and consumers don't much care about the publishers/middlemen.
What about AT&T Digital Cabel? Does someone know how to hack it to get all the channels?
I hereby nominate this story for the SLASHDOT SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD award!
This is just TOO GOOD... Now, I do not condone the unauthorized usage of directtv (THAT'S gonna get me -1 troll), but the sheer level of hacking this entailed is fantastic coding of the highest order! And the implications for directtv are enormous; I can't see them locking this out without completely changing the way their system works.
-Lx?
Wrong. It is GPL because it is based on the GPL software ucsim.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Hm, OK, there's no civil liabiilty, because there's no damages.
:) and chose not to.
There also may be no criminal liabiilty if the US DSS companies are permitted to distribute DSS signals in Canada (maybe by means other than DSS - the law isn't clear
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
When I was in Japan, I saw a number of "direct tv" dishes but as far as I can tell, the service won't work that far west.
For a while I was playing the the idea of using dish network in Australia but their bird at 149w seems to have died and its replacement went boom.
Well it is true that you can't buy DirectTV in Canada.
And I would guess that hacking/messing around with something which isn't a Canadian company/under government control might be legal. All the Canadian news reports against pirating satallite tv were against Canadian providers, but I've never seen one against an American.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Does this mean Microsoft Canada can violate the GPL because it is "valueless"? Honest question.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Perfect solution there pal. Except, you know, one would assume that the government in Canada is run by the people not by the media companies, especially not the ones that are not even Canadian.
How we know is more important than what we know.
And stealing American satellite TV is perfectly legal in Canada.
If DirecTV doesn't like it, they can stop broadcasting across our border =)
If law isn't a formal system where you find holes, then what the fuck are lawyers for?
It would, however, cut down on the for-profit illegal activity.
I remember a similar controversy over mod chips for the Playstation. 99% of the sites were "selling" mod chips. 0.9% of the sites were selling "kits" with pre-programmed (and read-protected) PICs. Only 0.1% of the sites actually contained some PIC code and told you what was really going on.
I wouldn't call the mod chip I installed in my PS1 "hacking" (I didn't do any of the research), but I had to (a) build my own PIC-burner, (b) burn my own PIC, which was both fun and educational.
Basically, if I couldn't do the engineering, at least I wanted to do the legwork myself.
Pond scum: Guy who sells pre-packaged gadget on which he did no research whatsoever, to Average Joes who just wanna watch "free" TV, for $500. Then charges 'em another $100 for every ECM.
'L33t d00d: Makes all code and design info freely available for anyone who wants to build one from scratch. May sell prebuild gadgets/software at slight premium to finance ongoing research efforts and/or web hosting costs.
Geek: Downloads aforementioned design info and software, sources parts independently, and sees if it works. Plays with it from time to time as the ECMs come out, to see if it still works. In time, may eventually morph into 'l33t d00d or pond scum, depending on ethical proclivities.
(I don't pretend that any of the people in the three categories I've invented are legal... I'm just throwing it out for discussion... IMNSHO, if there were more l33t d00dz, there'd be less pond scum, because the increased availability of the knowledge would increase the number of pond scum to the point that pond-scumming margins would drop.)
In the case of the Playstation, it wasn't that much of a problem. In the case of DirecTV, I admit, building one's own satellite dish from scratch, would be an impressive feat. :)
Uhhmmm... the guy who wrote this lives in Montreal, as in Canada. The DMCA is a US law. I'm sure that the guy will get sued for something, but I doubt it will be using the provisions of the DMCA.
The fact that this is in Canada makes it very interesting, IMHO. I remember that there was some guy who used to rebroadcast NFL games on the Internet. He was allowed to do this in Canada, but not allowed to do it in the US. If I remember correctly, he was successfully shut down. But then he convinced the courts that if he put in protections for the streams so that they wouldn't reach US customers, he could continue to operate, because the NFL rules applied only in the US, not in Canada.
The NFL, of course objected saying that the protections wouldn't work (they were right). But I remember thinking that he was allowed to turn his stuff back on.
I wish I could remember the name of the service, then I could get the details a little bit more accurate. But I wonder how that case as a precedent is going to effect the current situation.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
This is, like unlawful isn't it?
Does Open Source need this kind of promotion?
10,000,000 channels, and nothing is on.
I believe that eventually companies will resort to calling Free/Open software a serious threat, as opposed to making or adopting better technology. Most likely the attorneys in the likely-to-follow lawsuits will argue that Linux and code sharing are the causes of events like this.
I believe the entertainment industry has already recognized that it cannot trust users of "their" content. Anything that we hold cannot be restricted from us. The natural progression will be to adopt subscription-based models. Why the lawsuits now? I will bet it is more profitable to preserve the current distribution model for as long as possible before switching over.
Imagine paying $30 a month to listen to any song or watch any movie you wanted...
-- a billion channels and nothing worth looking at
And how exactly is this not describing the situation *today*?
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
In a normal emulator setup, you would still need an access card to generate the decryption keys, since that part of the card has never been emulated. But with this, you can have one card send the data to many different recievers via tcp. Excellent!
i haven't been able to find any projects for dishnetwork ,but they've got to be out there somewhere...
but IMHO, hacking is really using technology in a way it wasn't intended to be used, using skills that most people don't have.
This is the precise and exact definition of a hacker, be it a highly skilled programmer or an entrant of restricted systems and everyone that falls in between.
Funny how people forget that when they shout, "NUH UH, IT'S *CRACKER*!"
They have figured out how to emulate using a computer interfaced to the IRD. All this work and they still haven't cracked the ASIC or generated
a ZKT.
For all or our Canadian friends, this isn't good
news for the H card. Probably closer to a card swap then we know.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The only thing used in the auxed card (the remote) is the ASIC. It isn't directly exposed to the datastream, and it hasn't ever been written to by NDC (yet). For now, and probably forever it's (the card) is untouchable.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
And later I lived a few houses down from someone with a whopping big ass (and illegal) CB antenna. I could pick him up clearly with a 2-inch audio speaker with a foot of copper wire hanging off of each of the terminals.
What was really a drag was when I'd try to tape a record album on my stereo, and the dickhead would decide it was time to chat with his buddies. My tape would record his transmissions.
The neighborhood got up a petition to the FCC to disclipline him, but nothing ever happened.
Someone told me that the stove couldn't possibly have worked because there was nothing to rectify the signal, but there it was doing it. Creepy too. It wasn't very loud but you could make out words in the broadcasts.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
The message below was taken from a "DSS-hacking" message board, posted by pitou's author 'nerg343'
==========
GNU - error
It has been brought to my attention that pitou - the linux emu - has a GNU license included.
pitou was never intended to be released with the GNU license. The license was included in error from a development template I use. pitou will only be distributed in binary form.
I have notified the sites distributing pitou to pull the beta 2 version and replace it with the beta 2b version I have provided them. Beta 2b has the correct licensing information.
nerg343
=====
Go ahead and debate the legal semantics of a GPL mis-release, but it appears that it may never have been GPL'ed?
-ct
This is not new (or news for that matter). There is a really strong community behind this, reverse engineering all the "News Datacom" tricks, who, themselves counterattack by fixing the bugs found by this "community" and disabling the new attempts.
Its is not a cheap hobby either. Not only you have to upgrade constantly to follow the war, but in equipment it usually means easily a first 2000 US$ investment. If the card gets upgraded, then all your tools/devices must upgrade too (and there are many lost hours of downtime, due to ECMs, new tricks, whatever).
There is no real loss, or stealing for that matter, if you can't legally pay for the service in the first place. Remember the US crypto law? this law prohibits equipment like this to be exported outside USA, so DTV must obey and deny any outsider attempt to subscribe (since they are not supposed to have this crypto equipment on their hands).
Also this is not like breaking into phone communications, you are simply putting use of a publicy broadcast signal (TV! not private talks) falling in your head, outside of USA soil where you would otherwise do absolutely nothing with it.
At least the free available emulators kill the smugler "test" card resell business
Well, maybe the distributed server with the emu software, which is an interesting thing *if* you are into the scene.
--
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
morally wrong act
And what act is that? Are these guys killing people or sodomizing small children? No. They're getting access to a cable channel which you cannot pay for even if you want to in the country that they are from. Maybe in your mind this is a morally wrong act but I hardly see it as such. If it were possible to buy DirecTV in Canada, then I would call it a not-very-nice thing (though, again, hardly 'morally wrong' - I reserve that for a crime that actually hurts someone in a non-negligeble way).
"Well, it's not illegal so it must be ok!"
It's not only 'not illegal', it seems that Canadian courts have examined this issue and said that it is OK.
If someone tapped in to your cordless or cell phone's signal and replayed embarrasing conversations to your family, boss and friends would you be as forgiving?
What?!?!?! TV channels and private conversations are hardly the same thing. TV is meant to be seen/heard by as many people as possible. Private conversations are not. You are confusing copyright law with something else entirely (well, at least in my case - I hardly ever copyright my phone conversations).
Yes, he is. His post to this article is here.
Well, the media controls all the mindless people out there. They have them in the palm of their hand, and there is nothing we can do about it. If more uninformed stories about us (geeks, hackers, crackers, etc) get fed out to the general public, they are only going to get worse ideas. Face it, the media can warp anything they get into anything they want. The general public's attitude is based mainly on the information they are fed. What the media thinks is important, because sooner or later it will become what the general public thinks.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Why is everyone so worried about what this hack will to do Linux' reputation in the media? This hack could probably be recompiled for several other operating systems. Why the hell do you care what the media thinks of Linux anyway?
Unless, of course, you are in Canada, in which case they confiscate it, destroy it, and give your insurance company a call. The insurance company then decides that you must be a chronic speeder and raises your rates.
---
The article mentions that this may eliminate the need for seperate access cards (just have some card servers). If this was widely implemented, what would happen to all the people selling "1337 h4x0r c4rd$" (i.e., hacked cards that'll probably be disabled at some point, anyway)? Would this actually cut down some of the activities that DirecTV doesn't like? Granted, the numbers of people viewing for free would go up, but, since they wouldn't all need access cards, this could drive some of the underground market out of business.
.).
Next point: valid servers. Because DirecTV continually changes codes/kills hacked cards ("GAMEOVER", anyone?), would there be people who use their cards to subscribe to the whole package of channels (thus having a "valid" card at all times), and then charge other people to use their servers? It wouldn't be free for the people who use it, but it would be cheaper than paying for all the channels themselves (although if you really want cheap channels, get a TVRO system . .
what in the crap is up with everybody saying "linux is married and has kids?"
same thing on the mandrake story
do people not understand that operating systems cannot get married, while maybe creators of operating systems (say...linuS torvalds) can?
Kind of like the fabled dodo.
____________________
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
It's also "illegal" to listen to cordless phones, but you can buy scanners just about anywhere that pick that up. Also, I have a nice Yeasu FT-530 that I legally modified (having a ham radio license) that now gets in the 900Mhz range (where there is a ham band). The side effect being that I can now pick up cell phones.
As many people pointed out, this is kinda legal in Canada.. I really think it's more about getting the signal rather then descrambling it, but that's me.. Because sure, you can't get DirectTV, but buy descrambling it from them means you're not getting it from the local cable company, or some other provider in Canada.
Also, you've been able to do this for quite a while now, a friend of mine does it. I think it's a dos program and not a linux program.. but that doesn't really matter.
--
Free Mac Mini
This made me laugh when I read it on BBspot. Other people ripping it off pisses me off. Cite your sources, jackass.
"If you must write
prose and poems
the words you use should be your own
don't plagiarize or take on loan
there's always someone, somewhere
with a big nose, who knows
and trips you up and laughs when
you fall
They'll trip you up and laugh when you fall."
-Morrisey
~Religion is O.K., as long as it gets you laid.
Congratz.
it's in my head
hehe or the time I got banned from the library for "hacking" when all I was doing was using one of the "Lite Search Station" kiosks that were set up to only view library databases to log onto a MUD. All I did was put telnet://mud.url.net:PORT# in the Location bar on IE and it executed telnet... I laughed for weeks at them, hell I still get a chuckle... "hacking" being defined as running telnet... *snickers*
.
Perhaps you can explain to me why you have a right to beam your conversation into my space (indeed, through my body) but I have no right to listen.
The notions of 'interception' and 'theft' necessitate that something is removed from the posession of its inital owner. If I steal your car, you no longer have a car. If I intercept your pass, your team no longer has a football. If I hack directv or pick up your cell conversation on a radio, you and the directv have not lost anything (and are in fact quite unlikely to know that I exist with regard to your broadcasts). You beamed it into my space, I used it. You lost nothing. The end.
Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
Another interesting scenario evolves when considering that Telocity has just been bought by Hughs (DirecTV's Parent Company) and is now being called something like DirecTV Broadband or some nonsense. How about using DirecTV broadband to serve one of these H-card servers? Irony?
If /. can't even tell the difference, we're screwed.
--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
There's also a question of what actually constitutes "stealing". The Canadian hackers did not "deprive" the use of the DSS signal from the DirecTV satellite service. So "stealing" doesn't quite work here. A more accurate statement might be "It's Unauthorized Decryption". Yes it is. And it's also not illegal, at least in canada. But use of the term "theft" here makes one think of a far larger insidious deed than was perpetrated, While free TV is a legal possible outcome, under law, it is not "theft".
I am stunned by the sheer volume of people here who are simply willing to overlook a morally wrong act by hiding behind laws and saying, "Well, it's not illegal so it must be ok!" Come on people! Before there was legislation against data theft, cracking, phone phreaking etc. did that mean it was morally ok until someone decided to pass a law? Of course not! I'm no fan of large corporations like DirectTV but if you want your rights and personal property respected then you must reciprocate and respect everyone else's. If someone tapped in to your cordless or cell phone's signal and replayed embarrasing conversations to your family, boss and friends would you be as forgiving? Under your definition they are not stealing and aren't doing anything 'illegal' but does that make it right?
And the last thing you were wrong about is the hack itself. Yes, indeed, it's a damn fine hack.
So, in the future. Don't play loosey-goosey with the language. 'k?
Ummm... No... You did all but call it a crack yourself when you labeled it "Unauthorized decryption." Was it clever? Sure... but the word hack and crack are not interchangeable depending on how technologically impressive the act is... These guys are crackers and sully the name of all fine hackers everywhere. Perhaps it is you who should stop playing loosey-goosey with the language before lecturing others on it's use.
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
I don't see you making as much of an effort to tap into your neighbour's cellular phone conversations though.
:P- ----
And a damn good thing you don't see me doing it, too. Otherwise you'd jump our fence and smack the shit out of me.
By the way, dude... cut the calls to 'Mistress Cleo'. She's a fake.
---------------------------------------------
Interestingly, the FLEXLM license manager, used for expensive software packages, allows this. The license server is designed to work over the Internet, busily checking licenses in and out. Normally, this is within an organization (you can run N copies of ANSYS), but that's not required. Someone could create an open market where you can rent out your licenses when you're not using them, or rent ones as needed.
Why is this on slashdot? I don't care if it's legal in Canada or not, it's still stealing! This is just one more example of something the media will 'attribute' to OSS and Linux.
Just because Linux is free, doesn't mean everything else has to be.
I'll be interested to see DirecTV's response. I don't think anyone doubts that there will be one. Hopefully they fight back like they did before and not resort to lawyers and lawsuits.
Gentoo Linux http://gentoo.org/
I remember doing a bit of research back when DirectTV sent their "card killer" download back in January. All I can say is that this is likely to be the end of the H card. Not that Hughes really wants to eat the cost of replacing millions of active non-hacked H cards, but they may have to now. Unless this trick also works with HU cards, that is. :-)
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
How is it a "right" to use a service that is far from cheap to provide? How does one justify that? Though I agree that the DMCA has its weak points (no reverse engineering, etc) but DirecTV does deserve compensation for their service. If every country felt you could just steal it, then it wouldn't exist. This technological feat is impressive, and should not be illegal in itself, but using it should be. I hope DirecTV does something clevar like corrupt the firmware irrepably, and force any THIEF who used that hack to either buy a new reciever or be without. That would be just!
hear, hear!!
That is absolutely ridiculous and you know it! They provide a legitimate service, and though it may not be legally considered stealing, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that it is taking something for free, which you are intended to pay for!
I think you're confused. DirecTV does pay to broadcast in Canada because they know it will spill over. (I don't know about Mexico) However, for reasons I am unclear about, they are not allowed to sell the service there. I believe it is the government's restrictions. But the broadcasts going into Canada are not, as pretty much every slashdotter seems to believe, unauthorized.
You didn't make a single arguement in that entire post! The vast majority of it was attacking my intelligence, which is usually a sign of lacking a real basis for your case. The lesser part of the post makes a general assumption that large media corporations are bad. This would be a perfectly fine point if you gave any reasons!! I can't even refute your arguement since the reason for believing you is "if you can't understand why this is bad, well, you're even dumber than I thought." Not everybody considers large companies inherantly bad!! Give a logical arguement, and stop making yourself seem so ignorant, then I'll give an intelligent response. Asshole.
Sorry to burst your perfect little bubble, but DirecTV does pay to broadcast in Canada, because they aren't idiots -- they know their signal will be there too,and so they pay the Canadian equivilant of the FCC for rights to, but they still aren't permitted to sell the service. But nice try.
Okay, first of all, if my body picks up the signals, and all radio signals pass through flesh at some point, why don't I have the right to do what the hell I want with them? I'm not condemning nor praising the hackers. All I will say is if you want to, go right ahead.
As for the cell phone myth, it's a radio, nothing more. Despite the FCC outlawing scanners that can pick up cellphones, you can still hear them via images, ie radio anomalies in the scanner. I can routinely listen to cell phone calls on my cell blocked scanner.
It's all the same damn thing. As far as I'm concerned, I have a right to do what I want with anything that invades my body, whether that be radio signals, beef burgers or anything else.
Fuck DirecTV, fuck Microsoft, fuck the FCC, fuck them all.
---
Everyone is out there buying Tivo and other set top boxes only to wait for HDTV to come in with its protection schemes that will remove time-shifting and render their hardware useless. So now we use other hardware to make a workaround. This cycle of events ensures that only the wealthy can compete for control over how/when they view media. As history has shown it's the little guys who are the majority. Unless we start challenging the laws, more accurately the abuse of vague laws, that make it possible to make the hardware/software that create the "need" for these circumventing devices we will all end up getting shafted in the end. Corporations will always be one step ahead in the coming years.
I don't want to have to worry about updating my foo-emulater every time a new device comes out that threatens part of what is supposed to be a free media. I want to know that I, and the rest of the little people, will have the same unencumbered access to media that we have always had.
Ascii artist &
How on earth can Slashdot ever expect to be taken seriously anywhere if they practically _encourage_ illegal activity like this? I might be a bit double-moralish here, but I think there is a difference between this (stealing a product or service) and things like the DeCSS case etc. etc., where one is fighting for ones rights..
NOONE has the right to steal what someone is lawfully trying to sell..
Love over Gold.
It's not generally a good idea. It's neat to see that it can be done, but it pretty clearly shouldnt be. The guy is obviouly pretty sharp, but all this doesn is give M$ just a little more ammo in their FUD campaign against Linux and Open Source. "See! They use their OS to do ILLEGAL things, which we are striving to prevent with our new version of Windows XP!"
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
The service you're thinking of was called icravetv. Not only the nfl sued the guy... a massive group of folks, did. (Though, with the superbowl right around the corner, I think the NFL got the most attention).
Why did he get shut down? Well, for one thing, I think his company had been incorporated in the States. Very bad call, when you're trying to avoid American laws... it gave the US courts legitimate jurisdiction over his business.
What he was doing was (possibly) legal in Canada. (picking up the signals off the airwaves and rebroadcasting them unmodified.) He was in a grey area on the unmodified point, though, since his tv-frame would have banner-type ads along the top or bottom of the screen, and that didn't help his case.
In the end, he was sued into oblivion, not wholly because of the merits of the case, (whatever they may have been), but b/c of the deep pockets of those he was up against and their ability to keep on with the lawsuits until he was bankrupted.
The legality was never categorically resolved.
I did a little research on this and found something very cool!
In a nutshell, the original emulator software RUNS ON DOS. The Redmondians can't trot out this new Linux prog to demonstrate the inherent evil of Linux and Open Source software for the simple reason that good ol' DOS paved the way for this alleged theft!
It's another story completely about releasing this code as Open Source, since there ain't no source, but the lack of source code for the original emulator led this guy to code, from scratch, his own Linux flavor.
And lest anyone think this was a trivial task, take note that there are op-codes in the smart card that are not standard 8051 or 8052, so this is not a re-hash of everyone else's 8051 emulator code.
"
I disagree. Why should service providers have to pay to protect their data from stealing? It's like saying that I'm responsible for not using a more solid door lock if someone is breaking into my house.
"
If you don't want me to view it, don't beam it into my house.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
I think it's a difference between active and inactive piracy.
I modify a box to not pay -> I've circumvented their system for gain -> bad
They are giving me stuff I didn't pay for -> That's their own bloody fault -> ok
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
(b) It's news.
(c) It's about a somewhat-offbeat use of technology.
I think it pretty clearly falls under "News for Nerds". It sounds to me like you wouldn't want the NY Times reporting on, say, a drug problem in Central Park because that facilitates people finding places to buy drugs.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I wonder if this is the sort of hack that makes hacking more respectable, because people can understand and identify with it?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
It is dangerous to begin assuming that people simply cannot be trusted with information. Haystack security is unstable.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
>Seems like the owner of the intellectual property is being stolen from, if you ask me.
Not unless someone stole your patent or copyright on it. If I patent something you already have patented, for example, that is theft of intellectual property. If I instead build the device described in your patent, that is a copy. No theft has occurred. You still own your idea, can still market it, can still call it yours.
Unless they make it impossible for you to own your basic idea it is not stealing.
>The creator or owner of the media should be compensated for the effort, time and money that went into creating it.
Agreed. But, for example, just like parking in a handicapped space is not stealing (assuming you have no handicapped parking permit), neither is copyright violation. They are different items and cannot and should not be confused. Otherwise I would suggest that parking in a handicapped space is stealing that space from a handicapped person (which is also ludicrous in the extreme).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>Does that mean that if I speak on a mobile phone next to your house, you have the right to intercept my conversation?
In Canada, yes. If I had $500 to blow on a nice scanner I can walk into a Canadian radio shack and buy a scanner that lets me listen to your cell phone. I can show it to the police and the RCMP -- they will only get angry for me wasting their time.
>That would be quite funny as an argument.
I'm not laughing.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>it sounds more to me like they are going to the hairdresser and forget to pay the bill at the end.
No, they are going to the hairdresser, and realising that the RCMP *will* come to their house and prosecute them for paying, deciding that its best they don't.
Would you pay your hairdresser if the government threatened you with jail time and thousands of dollars in fines? Would you say it is morally unjust to follow the law?
If so, then the law is immoral. Get it struck down in court for the benefit of all Canadians (we really don't want the CRTC).
Short of killing people, or beating on people, I generally do what the government tells me to. Does that make be a bad person?
By your rule, it does. By your rule Canada should be in anarchy over this unfair form of legally enforced non-payment. But wait a minute, we already are in a state of anarchy as far as DirecTV satellite TV goes.
Which goes to prove Canadians are morally just. Thank you.
[BTW: If you don't believe we can't pay for DirecTV, phone them up yourselves. Say you are a Canadian and want their service. See what they tell you. Ask them if it is even legal for you to attempt to circumvent their rules with a US mailing address if you are a Canadian.]
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
No NO NO! We can't pay for it! We are Canadian, and purchasing an American signal IS illegal. This is the only legal way for us to watch this excellent American television.
It sounds to me like you wouldn't want the NY Times reporting on, say, a drug problem in Central Park because that facilitates people finding places to buy drugs.
Yeah, but it would be if the article told you which dealer to approach, how much the drugs cost, and then how to administer the dose.
While I tend to agree with you, it's not that black & white where technology is concerned.
I would also bet that gun control laws wouldn't stop people from killing each other with firearms.
I guess there's no cure for cluelessness.
So what if they are not able to pay for the channel? They are getting something that has a value (yes, a TV channel may have a value, at least money-wise) without paying for it. That's morally wrong.
Actually, since it is ILLEGAL to sell DirectTV subscriptions in Canada, then it would seem the channels have no value in Canada (of, at least, DirectTv is losing nothing by Canadians decoding the signal). DirectTV is prohibited, by law, from making money off those Canadians.
Josh Sisk
Again, morally, I think it's wrong to do it. It does not make it right to use the hairdresser just because he's blind and he can not count your money.
Totally different. The hairdresser can't work on someone else while he is working on you, thus you are hurting him finacially. In this case, the signal goes out to Canada as a byproduct of it being sent to paying customers in the USA. If DirectTV doesn't want Canadians to watch, they should figure out a way to not send the signal to Canada.
Josh Sisk
At any rate, If you're not complaining about DirecTV stealing billions of dollars of spectrum away from Canada, then your morals aren't worth the oxygen you've used to voice them.
Thats a good point as well. The DirectTV signal is being broadcast on what are public airwaves in Canada.
Josh Sisk
A DTV emulation setup isn't as hard to get going as you are making out. It is a barrier to the casual pirate, but anyone with slightly above-average computer skills can get it to go. And I do mean "slightly." You only need an old crapbox computer and a couple hundred bucks in other gear, which is easily available. There are written guides and helpful forums to get you going. You just have to Google for it all.
DirecTV made it a bit harder on the pirates, but they have NOT "essentially won" by any means. If you read the DTV hacking boards it's practically back to business as usual... only the people who can't afford the equipment are out of luck, with their toasted cards.
Echostar is currently very easy, a $50 part and some Windows freeware is all you need to "test' Dish.
Gee, why run everything on local hardware you control when you can subject yourself to the unknown factors in a network connection? :) I agree, this isn't that important. A neat hack but that's it.
I guess if you had a ton of DTV boxes in your home and you wanted hacked TV in every room you could set up a server yourself...
Unlike us nefarious types, John Law is the good guy and must play by the rules. Therefore, law enforcement officers can't simply tap into the Net and start sniffing packets (leaving aside the computing resources required). Well, they could, but they could never get a warrant based on this ill obtained evidence, and it certainly would never be usable in court.
What they do have to do is get a warrant just as if they wanted to tap your phone. And in order to do that, they must already suspect you. So this doesn't add any extra visibily in the face of the law.
As a an aside, using a VPN or even simply tunneling via SSL would easily solve this problem.
The H card is also called a P2 card. The HU is P3.
I know this may stun you and even cause your heart to pause for a second so you better take a seat before I say this:
Canada does not operate under the same laws as the US.
I know, it's amazing isnt it. I've also heard rumours that there are other "countries" (this is what they are called akaik) each with their own set of laws.
What a bizarre concept!
- Toby
Personally, I'd be interested in one of these so that I could have multiple DTV receivers running off a single, legitimate card that I own.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
(which is owned by Hughes Electronics, which is in turn a subsidiary of General Motors) who was granted free use of a slice of spectrum.
I think extra benefits should cost more $$. If the FCC is selling parts of the spectrum, they might as well go all the way.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The airwaves, like it or not, belong to the public, and with one major exception, the public can do whatever the hell they want to with it.
By your analogy, if you live with a whole bunch of people in a dorm / commune / whatever, the food in the fridge belongs to everybody. (i.e. the food inside belongs to all of you, just like the radio spectrum, it is not that there is an "outsider" involved.
Mind you, you are still legally allowed to "capture" the cell phone frequencies, just illegal to create/buy a receiver, or to use / distribute the information gained.
Another fact is that the major tv companies have not paid a dime for their use of a major slice of really, really nice (one of the nicest portions of the)spectrum.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Multiply that by the number of subscribers.
Now, think hard about how much money the government of the USA gets from these corporations (lets not include bribes ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H "campaign contributions")
Essentially these companies are ripping off the federal government, and the citizens of the USA. They sell a product for the average of $55/mth that is worth exactly $0 without the slice of the spectrum provided at little / no cost to them.
The worst part is that these bastards were making a tidy profit at $20/month, but decided to jack up prices because they knew people would pay.
Mind you, there are other places in the world besides the USA, and doing this evil thing is not a crime, nor even viewed upon as something "bad".
I'm afraid that you've been watching a bit too much American Bullshit-vision, and / or have attended an American public school. Check a world map - see all those pretty colours? Those are different countries, not American possesions / states.
And last, but not least, these wonderful people, on a day to day basis, blast you with enough radio waves, with enough power to power a pair of headphones with no external power source. No conclusive studies have shown what the effects of this amount of radiation are on the human body.
I don't pirate cable nor satelite. TV is pretty much all bullshit, with a few exceptions. Peasant vision (i.e. "free" channels) is good enough for me. Too many goddamn ads too.
And, if you want to split hairs, the satelite companies do not pay for the content, but for the delivery mechanism. The advertisers pay for the majority of the content.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
It's legal to sniff emf, 802.11, cordless phone calls, the whole em spectrum is yours, as a resident of the USA to do with as you please with one or two exceptions (data received on a 900mhz can not be distributed to other parties or some other such bullshit, its also illegal to sell scanners / modchips).
As for peeping tom laws, there is a difference between receiving any EM signal, and using it in different ways. Peeping tom laws are designed to stop people from sitting outside your window with their dicks in their hands. It's legal for people to look through your windows, and even record those "signals", but not legal for them to do some crazy shit with it. The supreme court recently ruled that it is illegal for the police to drive down the streets with infra-red scanners looking for drug houses. This does not mean that infra-red scanners are illegal in general - only that use of them by police would be inadmissible as evidence.
I believe, by your arguement, you would be willing to sacrifice the freedom of the press in order to eliminate a few paparattzi (sp?)
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Canadian courts ruled it fully legal and permissible to use the signals how you want. Mind you, the real thieves are the satelite companies that paid little / nothing for a slice of spectrum that they use to make billions.
Whats withe the Canadian bashing? But then I see that your grammar is well, typical of someone who attended an American public high school. Canadians may be hosers, but compared to being called (I don't know how to put this gently) a prejudiced American, it's not really an insult.
At least I can sow my flag on a backpack and not have "problems", like getting the shit beaten out of me, or being robbed. Fuck yeah, I'm a hoser. Damn proud of it too.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Intercept -
To stop, deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of
Receive -
To take or acquire (something given, offered, or transmitted)
To hear or see (information, for example)
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Umm, Linux is married and has kids....
This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine...
This seems one more step toward the fabled digital convergence, too.
What the heck does this mean? I'm serious, what does stealing DirecTV have to do with "digital convergence", which is pretty much a nonsense phrase to begin with?
It's not 'stealing,' because us Canadians
What a hoser, I thought you Canadians were like laid back, eh? In any case, where I said "stealing" feel free to substitute "liberating" or whatever word makes you happy, and understand that my point was that it still has nothing to do with 'digital convergence'.
Also, how do you feel about the "non-regulated signals" known as thermal energy?
I'd love to know how a US law about thermal imaging has anything to do whatsoever with Canada.
The Canadian dude was making the point that the DirecTV signals are being beamed into his house, and thus under current Canadian law, he's free to do whatever he wants with the signals, including decode and watch 'em.
I was trying to point out that there's a price to be paid for this philosophy: you're also "broadcasting" your thermal image even when you're behind the closed walls of your house. Does he also agree that police, neighbors, passers-by should be able to spy on him using the latest and greatest thermal imaging technology, since his image is being sent into their airspace? (Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but I wanted to make sure that he had considered this ramification). I should probably make some joke about rubbing brain cells together here.
But rub my own brain as I might, I still think that "Digital convergence" is a fairly meaningless buzz-phrase, and is especially meaningless in the context of stealing (excuse me, liberating) DirecTV.
Whats withe the Canadian bashing?
I said Canadians were "laid back." That's not an insult; in fact, it's almost a compliment. And I jokingly called the poster a hoser. And while I may sound like a kindergartener when I say this, he started it when he said "Here in Canada we have something called 'rights'". Such hubris almost requires a mocking response.
But then I see that your grammar is well, typical of someone who attended an American public high school.
Thank goodness you're able to criticize my so-called Canadian bashing (and once again, where did I bash Canada?) , since you're so clearly above American bashing. I still don't know what gross grammatical mistake I made that called for you to insult my entire country. And you're missing a comma.
satelite,withe,I can sow my flag on a backpack,caffeineated
I guess my American high-school spelling is substandard, too, since I would have spelled those words differently. (Yeah, I know, spelling flames are lame, but once again I'm going to go with the lame "He started it" excuse. I know I probably made a few spelling mistakes of my own. Damn Slashdot's lack of an "ispell post" button!)
My subscription, my equipment, my (ab)use (of my LAN).
Another thing:Please stop with the hypocritical "You can't do that, that's illegal!, Shocked, shocked,*SHOCKED* I am!!!" type of messages. You sound like a bunch of 6th-grade smokers railing against the one kid who managed to get caught.
I see this biting all the Emulators of the world in the ass cuz Dave is gonna be cracking down and working harder in stopping emulators. (IE, shut off the H stream)
Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
To those interested in the license situation of this software, I sent the following email to him about the 'bolded' comment on his website:
. html
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8073314981
'Unfortunately, Linux is a multitasking OS, which means that real-time applications like pitou suffer from this.'
This likely goes without saying, but Linux has some RTOS conversions/ports. The link above is a link to a bunch of projects to make Linux an x86 RTOS. Ive got an H card that was damaged beyond repair some months ago, i was looking at firing it up again under an emulator - but using Linux && emulating from a served card has a certain appeal... best of luck with your refinement efforts.
BTW, excellent hack. good show.
Is bitou licensed GPL?
Regards,
Xxxx
received this response:
ll, I based myself on a GPL'ed program, so I will have to release the source eventually. I want to get it out of beta first.
nerg343
Fyi: Hope nerg343 dosnt mind my posting this here - im at 50 karma, so whoring is not the motivation...
Appears to work in FreeBSD just fine :)
Pitou is french of doggy... Go figure...
This is not a troll; I'm just wondering why so many people seem to be supporting this hack. Sure, it's kind of neat, but it allows people to steal service. How is this anything but cheating?
In other words, could someone please list some reasons why DirecTV is in the wrong and the hackers are in the right here? I just want to know.
-John
Anyone who has studied Welfare Economics should know that this is a perfect example of a public good. One of the characteristics of such a good is that it is 'Non-excludable', which means that in effect you can't stop someone from using the good even if they don't pay for it. This leads to 'free riding', or a situation where people benefit from the good without paying for it.
The trouble with public goods though is that free market's just don't provide them - the government has to intervene to provide them. And we all know what state provided television can be like (see the BBC - I hope noone gets offended, but compared to people like Sky they're complete rubbish mostly)
So what has happened here is that the maker of the good has tried to make the good 'excludable' with legal restrictions. As many people are suggesting, it would be possible to use technical restrictions instead, but consider that if you're going to use technical restrictions that means money, and who's going to be the person who has to pay for it in the end? That's right, you and I.
So all of you who are saying that if they're transmitting the signal you should be able to use what you like, then if you continue down that path you're either going to end up with your telly license going up in price because technical barriers must be put in place, or the companies going out of business because they can't stop people just using the signal for what they like. I think we can agree that both of these things are A Bad Thing compared with the simple system at the moment of just paying your money to get the programs. It's also something which is rarely found these days - Honest.
--
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
' Ore stabit fortis a fine placet ore stat '
- found on a park bench
Except accordong to a lot of other comments here it ISN'T theft if you are a citizen of Canada. So Blame Canada.
Most people do that. Me too ... when it's convenient to me. :-)
How about ethical?
You ask this on Slashdot? You must be new around here.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
Moral point of view? Ha! This is 2001 and Slashdot ... besides, morallity is such a vague term as to have little, if any, meaning anyway.
Like it or not, we live in an increasingly "legalistic" society. Most people people think legal=right. By that thinking then, there is nothing wrong with us Canadians doing whatever the hell we please with the signal. As long as it's not against our, Canadian, law.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
From what I've been told, Virginia's ban on radar detectors has NEVER been tested in court.
Getting caught with one isn't the end of the world, anyway. No points, and they can't even confiscate it.
Tastes Like Chicken
I was also thinking about those stories that used to circulate about how, under the right circumstances, people could pick up radio signals with the fillings in their teeth. What if the radio signal you happened to pick up was somebody's cordless-phone conversation? Are you breaking the law? Is your dentist part of the conspiracy for building the "receiver" that you used?
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I agree with what you said, but I really don't think people are that stupid. Linux is a tool, and it can be used for good OR bad. People don't condemn Microsoft because of software piracy. The only way they could condemn all Linux users would be because of their own idiocy.
-- juju
Should slashdot only post happy warm-fuzzy stories? By that logic, perhaps CNN should stop broadcasting war coverage.
-- juju
I think that you're only saying it's not hacking because either it seems very simple to you, or because you don't approve of it. I find that a lot of people think this, but IMHO, hacking is really using technology in a way it wasn't intended to be used, using skills that most people don't have. I think that this qualifies as that. I guess we all have our definitions of the word, tho.
Also, I don't making money is bad. But, for some reason unknown to me, when people amass billions and billions of it, they gain a certain power that they tend to abuse a lot. Power corrupts, as they say.
-- juju
At any rate, it looks like satellite networks have one more thing to worry about now.
I just got DirecTV a month or so ago, and it beats the hell out of cable. It would be nice to unlock all those titles with big 'M's next to them, but it seems too risky.
Quoted:
-snip- It blows my mind that if someone hands the cable guy $50, and he hooks up some extra channels without authorization, we would all agree that this person is stealing cable. -snip-
The problem is that the DirecTV is using the public airwaves to transport its system. The cable company is using a private infrastructure, usually cables in conduit underground or on poles. Just like it's illegal to snag free copper pairs from the phone company, it's illegal to snag free cable service. All copyright and other crap aside (since I don't exactly understand it), these are two completely different animals.
When you use a cell phone, talk on a walkie talkie, or anything that transmits RF, you assume the risk that your signal can be intercepted. Don't like it? Use wires.
even though I think this is truly cool, it's not going to help the case much with, hmm, the MPAA, or even trying to change the media's outlook that all Linux users are hackers and all hackers are bad.
Yes, this is great. As a programmer and a consumer, I find it highly interesting. Yet there is absolutely no way that this will go well with the government.
This can not only NOT PASS for fair use (now you want to watch using a copy of someone else's access card? This doesn't pass for fair use, as you can already watch satellite on your Linux box using the DirecTV receiver and a PCI TV card. This will be considered blatant satellite thievery. And where previously the market for stolen satellite signals was very expensive (reprogrammable H-cards, etc) now it's become extremely inexpensive.
Will definitely not help our case at all.
I agree with you in that it can be used for good OR bad, well ANY software can.
However, I -do- think that the majority of society are idiots and would see this and think that all hackers are out to steal cable or whatever.
A kinda off-topic example:
At my last job I got a reputation as a hacker when I figured out how to make a program run past its expiration date...All I did was open up its INI file and about 3 lines down it said:
Expires=3/1/2000
I changed that line to: Expires=12/31/9999 and wala it worked....All the employees were dumbfounded that I had actually "cracked" a program.
No... laws are a bad idea because they don't actually stop piracy. Better encryption does. Here's a bad example: somebody is shooting water at you with a garden hose. he makes it illegal for you to drink the water. well, you can still drink it. oops. the solution is to `encrypt' the water, say by adding some poison. now you won't drink the water without proper equptment. to apply this to DirecTV, just sub radio for water, etc. it just makes sense to me that if something is going through into your house, etc, then you can use it.
My other car is first.
Despite your rhetoric and the propaganda of the software, entertainment, and other "content industries," infringing a copyright is not and never will be theft, no matter what you say. Theft requires that the victim be deprived of an item. When something is replicated, this clearly does not happen.
Those who call it theft are either:
So, which one are you?
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Read my post again and tell me where I said that creators shouldn't be compensated. (Hint, I didn't.) All I said is that copying is not theft, and I stand by that, as does anyone who isn't dense or deceptive.
Oh, and I find your insinuation that those who consider copyright infringement theft are somehow Nazis utterly pathetic. People always seem to try and make a link to the Nazis whenever their argument is failing... ("Oh, Hitler was a vegetarian, you know..." etc.)
Oh, please. Himmler was just an example of a well-known propagandist, and would have represented what I was saying whether or not he had been a Nazi. Sounds like you're not that confident in your own weak argument for pointing out that merely parenthetical reference. I'm surprised you didn't yell "GODWIN'S LAW! GODWIN'S LAW!"
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
How can you possibly confuse the word take with the word copy? Is it because they both have four letters? Because they sure as hell don't mean the same thing, which means that copying isn't stealing, and thus infringement isn't theft.
Now that that's settled, let's work on "hacker" vs. "cracker," another example of a word whose meaning is being deliberately distorted by those with a vested interest.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
That's your opinion <grin>. Really, I know that the dichotomy's fallacious, but it does usually produce a vigorous defense!
I hardly think Himmler was a good choice.
What propagandist whould you suggest as recognizable? (I know this will come up again; there's a Napster thread on the main page <guffaw>.) I was actually gratified that someone recognized Himmler; I thought about using Goebbels, but thought that would be even more obscure.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
As for people killing eachother.. Cough: NRA. I'd say more, but I'd probably get shot next time I went to a baseball game.
Then there's DirecTV. If I had the money to fork over for a receiver, I'd be hooking up my emu in a second. Partially for the educational value and partially for the free movies. Everyone's an opportunist at heart. Who can honestly say they haven't downloaded an MP3? That's pretty shady...
Ban the receiving units. Since they don't want the service to exist in Canada they should go ban the receiver's too. Then there'd be some room to fine/jail the pirates. Of course enforcement would be up to the Canadians who obviously don't care in this department :)
Record TV was also around for a while providing a similar service. Heard about it through Slashdot unfortunately so I never actually got to use them as they were quickly swamped (then sued).
So... quick question... would you take the same attitude towards someone who was sniffing your home 802.11b network and stealing your passwords?
Oh, and don't go off about not having a wireless network or keeping your network secure, etc. The same argument applies to someone sniffing the EMF from your monitor, which most people don't do unless they're paranoid. The point is that yes, the signals are publicly available, but it isn't necessarily legal/A Good Idea(tm) to do...
How about someone staring through your window, watching your every move? They're intercepting, legally, 'EM radiations' - but that doesn't prevent the government from enacting Peeping Tom laws...
It's a fine line...
-Karl /dos]# file msdos.sys
---------
[root@kgutwin
[root@kgutwin
msdos.sys: fsav (linux) virus (17518-87)
By broadcasting their signal into my property, they lose their rights to it. It's like peppering my yard with Office2K CD's and then complaining when I use them.
I should sue them for illegal use of my airspace rights (not only DirectTV but every damn company that is using up the radio spectrum in my yard. What if I wanted to put up a small transmitter to tranmsit across the yard, but now I can't because damn WKWL is broadcasting on the signal in my property!)
I know that the US has an odd view about this, but last I checked, corporations weren't people, and thus, have no "rights". Of course, most of our politicians have gone about and written laws to grant them "rights", but that's another problem altogether.
Please don't try to preach to me about the "rights" of corporations. Corporations have a single, undying motive: to make a profit. If a corporation can justify breaking a law to make a profit, then believe me, it will.
Corporations are not "born", do not "die", and do not have a soul or a conscience. The Creator (God, Allah, or the Big Bang, whatever your fancy) did not create corporations, and did not endow them "unalienable rights". Corporations have no rights, and until more people come to realize this, the US will continue to be run by and for the corporations.
Fabled Digital Convergence? Nah, they bit the big one over a week ago.
This is not a Fugazi
No, I'm not a troll. (are you?)
I was refering to the particular sentence in the particular post. In particular, I belive that building a receiver to listen to other people's conversation should be illegal. Maybe it's not stealing, but it's invasion of privacy.
Intercepting or faking a digital account, in order to access/listen to something that's not yours (whether it belongs to a private person or a company) is much the same thing to me.
Stealing? maybe not the right word, but the same effect. And no, a movie it's not yours to see unless you pay for it.
[b]If you don't want me to view it, don't beam it into my house.[/b]
Does that mean that if I speak on a mobile phone next to your house, you have the right to intercept my conversation?
That would be quite funny as an argument.
What if the radio signal you happened to pick up was somebody's cordless-phone conversation? Are you breaking the law?
Well, if you are using your fillings to listen to that conversation, then you are breaking the law.
Remember, law is not a formal system that you are supposed to find holes in. Law is ment to help the people see the right from wrong. There is need for human common-sense at some point.
Are these guys killing people or sodomizing small children? No. They're getting access to a cable channel which you cannot pay for even if you want to in the country that they are from.
No, they are not killing people, it sounds more to me like they are going to the hairdresser and forget to pay the bill at the end.
So what if they are not able to pay for the channel? They are getting something that has a value (yes, a TV channel may have a value, at least money-wise) without paying for it. That's morally wrong.
I understand that the judge ruled that the channel has no value in Canada. But I'm not sure I totally agree with that, at least from a moral point of view. After all, the guys now do not need to pay in another way to see some movies or shows they would otherwise pay for, maybe to another distributor. So, even if DirectTV does not lose, someone else is losing.
Again, morally, I think it's wrong to do it. It does not make it right to use the hairdresser just because he's blind and he can not count your money.
I understand that the judge ruled that the channel has no value in Canada. But I'm not sure I totally agree with that, at least from a moral point of view. After all, the guys now do not need to pay in another way to see some movies or shows they would otherwise pay for, maybe to another distributor. So, even if DirectTV does not lose, someone else is losing.
Again, morally, I think it's wrong to do it. It does not make it right to use the hairdresser just because he can not receive your money.
I disagree. Why should service providers have to pay to protect their data from stealing? It's like saying that I'm responsible for not using a more solid door lock if someone is breaking into my house.
The content, like it or not, is the property of the distributor, and just because it's easy to steal it's not making stealing more justified.
If you had several receivers in the home, you could host one and serve to the one in the bedroom right?
I wouldn't know, I have cable.
When can I hack into that box?
Get your Unix fortune now!
I most absolutely would take the same attitude. If I want to send sensitive information through the air, it is my responsibility to either a) use some sort of line-of-site device or b) properly encrypt any information I send. 802.11b is, when reduced to the basics, a fancy morse-code flashlight that uses a wavelength out of the visible spectrum and is really fast. Would you blame someone who can read morse and saw you flashing signls across a city?
My server
Just a couple of thoughts on this.
First, anyone who thinks any signal that they can reach is free for them to use should go to radio shack and try to buy a scanner with cellular frequencies. They're illegal -- and it's illegal to build something to listen to them. It's been a long, long time since frequencies were free.
Interesting technology, but as someone else noted, it's one I'd be very careful using; unlike older satellite hack technologies (where you'd call up a BBS for access codes), you're easily tracked here. I sure wouldn't do this.
Arbitrary beginning of the piracy flamewars: people have to remember that there's no free lunch. If you steal content from DirectTV, those of us who DO pay for the service are subsidizing you. Someone has to pay for this stuff; if everyone tried to steal if, it'd disappear. (we now stand back to watch all of the pirates attempt to rationalize away their theft by calling it other things...)
But most importantly, and the reason I delurked in the first place, this is yet another example of a company that uses stupid, weak, badly designed encryption techniques and tries to enforce them with obscurity and bluster. Companies like DirectTV need to learn that if they want to protect their content, they can't cheap out on the technology. DeCSS is a classic example of this -- you lock your front door with a piece of twine, and tell everyone that if they dare open the door, they'll call the police.
Anyone with half a brain knows to get a deadbolt and keep them out in the first place. Sooner or later, enough of these cracks will occur to convince even the stupid companies to get their act together. Until then, even if the pirates are wrong -- it's hard to sympathize with companies that make it easy...
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome = When his IQ reaches 50, he should sell
Most likely the attorneys in the likely-to-follow lawsuits will argue that Linux and code sharing are the causes of events like this.
I disagree.
This has nothing to do at all with Linux. If someone ports the software to run in DOS, that point would be invalid. This also has nothing to do with code sharing. You only need the binary to watch the free TV, and probably 99.99% of people using it will never even look at the source. The decoding program is already out there, and is changed when it stops working. Distributing the software is barely different (legally) from distributing an mp3 player.
If the attorneys want to argue something, perhaps they can attack the card-server providers (if they allow access from US-based ip address).
It's truely sad when Slashdot starts posting stories explaning how to steal DirecTV service. It has absoluty no redeeming value whatsoever. timothy should be ashamed of himself for posting this trash
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
for several months now. Works great on my cousins DSS. The hardware is a 486 with 16 MB of RAM, and it gives you all of the restricted local channels, too! Plus, the black case adds highlight to his living room :-)
You also might like to consider how much "American Television" is actually made in Canada
I wouldn't exactly point to this with pride... The main reason so much is produced in the Great White North is to escape union contracts and various stupid laws they have south of the border. And the shrinking value of the Northern Peso relative to Real Dollars has something to do with it, too.
Using a step-by-step by-the-numbers guide published by someone on the Internet to connect two bits of hardware together just so that you can get something that you would otherwise have to pay for isn't hacking. It isn't even remotely close to hacking.
What it is is theft, but because this is Slashdot, and because making money is bad but stealing from the big guys is good, this kind of behaviour is applauded.
Any DirecTV "hackers" have anything to say to justify their actions?
(Please don't give me that "it's my airwaves crap". You're going out of your way here to tap into someone else's legitimate broadcasts just so that you can get free TV. I don't see you making as much of an effort to tap into your neighbour's cellular phone conversations though.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
At least I can sow my flag on a backpack and not have "problems"...
It's sew, you canadian jackass. If you're going to sit around nitpicking grammar, you should goddamn well make sure yours is right. And you might want to think up some of your own material. Perhaps 'and it's pronounced 'zed'' was going to be next, you non-unique, Molson-commecial-copying shithead?
But hey, I guess you reap what you sow, eh? (owch)
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
Last login: Fri Jun 22 21:54:52 from local. /home/pub {GAME OVER}: GAME OVER
--- My Karma is bigger than your...
------ This sentence no verb
so how about a few links with people who have dropped their direct tv hook up in the server room and plugged it into their T3's. native japanese version of iron chef ? oh yea.. heh
...can an article on Hacking DirecTV turn into an anti-Microsoft screed. I am humbled by the majesty of it. :)
Invisible Agent
Invisible Agent
This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
This is unquestionably stealing, and I've seen a lot of posts saying that and then asking for someone who is doing this to justify themselves. I want to make sure we're on the same page here; this is not a troll it's something I really believe, and I don't watch TV anyway. The point is this: justify themselves to whom? You? HA!!! There is no justification for this, it's that simple; so what? I won't be doing this but I'm not about to judge anyone who does. I don't need to justify jack squat and neither does anyone else, what're you going to do about it hmmmm? Seriously, I don't like all the laws that huge corps. get passed so what is my reaction? Well I give to the EFF, I write my congressman (Dick Durbin (oh man, what a name!)) and I steal like breathing from big companies that are cutting into my freedoms (but never from small operations, ya know, mom and pop stuff). That doesn't fit into your moral sense, tough crap. I don't need to justify myself to anyone but a judge and a jury of my peers _if_ I am caught. _If_ I get caught I'll get into trouble but that's the risk I take. I'm willing to go through what I have to so that I can live the way I want to. If someone wants to steal DirectTV and they're willing to risk paying the price if they get caught, than so be it. *Ahem* that was a bit ranty but I feel better now.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
without obscuring the piracy issue, the time has come for us to open the content. currently focus seems to be around opening the mega corporations content and theyre protection schemes.
it is definately an important fight, but why not also produce free content. lets start producing tv, film and written content and release it as truly free on the internet.
Let's not forget the popular SLE44 smartcard emulator for DOS written by PGM. This is the most popular emulator and runs from MS-DOS. This impact of this program is much higher than that of pitou, imho.
i swear my userid used to be lower.
What are you talking about? Since when has media ever been unencumbered? Are you totally a totally spoiled brat, or are you the guy who steals newspapers out of the box, or Time Magazine out of your neighbor's mailbox? What's the difference? Information - yes, it should remain "unobstructed". But "media"? Did you steal a TV from Walmart to watch Nightline? Even in television's case the delivery vehicle isn't free.
You've been reading "The hacker's dictionary" too much. Hacking is not a new english word, and is not uniquely used to describe a high level of skill with computers or stuff. You can have a clever "hack". In the british TV series about the defense lawyer Rumpole, he describes himself as an "Old Bailey Hack". A lawyer, or rather someone dabbling with law.
A computer hacker is just someone dabbling with a computer. A persistant hacker dabbles a lot and produces something.
I'd say someone dabbling with bits of hardware to do something it was not supposed to do qualifies as a hack. Didn't exactly cure the cancer, but it's a nifty little hack.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
"...apparently believe that the mere act of spending money entitles you to a return on your investment. Let's get this straight: No one 'deserves' money just because they put their money, time, or effort into a project." ------ The above statements are just absurd. While it is true they do not "deserve" compensation simply for providing a service, they do "deserve" to be fairly compensated by those who USE their service, just as you "deserve" to get a paycheck for showing up at work everyday. And concerning this topic in general, lets be completely honest with ourselves. This technology will be used primarily for one thing, FREE SERVICE, even if this was not the author's intent. It blows my mind that if someone hands the cable guy $50, and he hooks up some extra channels without authorization, we would all agree that this person is stealing cable. Yet, if we use an im-so-l33t-i-run-linux box to cheat DirecTV, we are not thieves, but noble techies expressing our love of technology...... Smells like bullshit to me. I'm all for this technology, and I will probably use it myself. However, I refuse to pretend I'm not doing something wrong. When the DirecTV guy comes knocking on my door, and asks me just what exactly that silly box is near my TV, I will give him a 100% honest answer..... "Oh that? That's a toaster." - Doug
Ive been doing it with win 9x for months now. Now that its a headline, they may actualy notice me. SHHHHH!
Such fine reporting! The article by r0f gives new hope to portly homosexuals everywhere. I only hope the joy he recieved comes close to the joy he gets from rectal coitus.