Satellite Hackers Charged Under DMCA

Pretty Sad by rolandbm · 2003-02-14 05:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its pretty sad when you can be arrested for the giving out of information. By giving out info, I could go to prison. Guess I won't leave the house again.

P.S. fp?

--
It can giggle all it wants. The galaxy's not gettin any of our Bourbon.

Re:Pretty Sad by rmadmin · 2003-02-14 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Whats more scary is that you can be arrested just for having that information! Did these people actually hack a satelite/feed? What is this, fscking Minority Report?

--

Can all fish swim?
Re:Pretty Sad by 2names · 2003-02-14 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wouldn't go all hermit just yet...
Let's wait and see how the case turns out. Perhaps the judge will also recognize the idiocy in punishing people for giving out information.
Writing the code, or giving out the code is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than USING the code to break the law.

--
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Re:Pretty Sad by rolandbm · 2003-02-14 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since most of them did plead guilty, I'm assuming that they did actually hack the sat/feed. Of course with the DMCA rules, their lawyers could have just said, "If you are found guilty, you'll go to jail for the rest of your life!!!" (yes I'm exaggerating).

But still, if I show you how to hack the dish and give you the hardware for it, what law have I broken? Ability does not imply intent. All people who have knifes, aren't cooks. Some are serial killers :)

--
It can giggle all it wants. The galaxy's not gettin any of our Bourbon.
Re:Pretty Sad by PhxBlue · 2003-02-14 05:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Giving out information" has always been able to get you in trouble, if said information is classified or was a trade secret. The only difference now is, giving out information can land you in jail if it costs another corporation a certain amount of money. . . but really, that's nothing new either.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:Pretty Sad by Planesdragon · 2003-02-14 05:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

Writing the code, or giving out the code is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than USING the code to break the law.

You're right. That's why Congress passed the DMCA.

Arrest one script kiddie, and you give some punk a free education.

Arrest the black-hat hacker who makes the scripts for the kiddies, and you can actually do something.
Re:Pretty Sad by Sparr0 · 2003-02-14 05:53 · Score: 2, Informative

You have broken the DMCA. It makes it illegal to make or distribute methods or equipment for circumventing anything designed to control access to a copyrighted work, which is exactly what the satellite reciever box/system does.
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:05 · Score: 1, Funny

Uhmmm... So what we're implying here is that they wrote the code, but never ran it...?

Must be some pretty good coders. Anytime I write code, I usually have to run it at least once (usually many times) to make sure it works correctly. Its called debugging.
Re:Pretty Sad by DaveOke · 2003-02-14 06:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, they did. As I beleive, they developed a program called ExtremeHU. This program was developed to unloop and program DirectTVs HU cards. You can read about their accomplishments that landed them in jail at decodernews.com
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

But still, if I show you how to hack the dish and give you the hardware for it, what law have I broken?
The DMCA. Like it or not, it's the law.
Ability does not imply intent. All people who have knifes, aren't cooks. Some are serial killers :)
You may remember the extensive 'fair use' discussions that have gone on here and elsewhere around the 'net. The point of fair use says that it is reasonable to use copyrighted material for brief excerpts, private use, and so on.
Let's pretend that we treat knives as a 'fair use' item. Knives can be used for substantial non-infringing/illegal uses, like chopping tomatoes, or opening boxes. When used in a manner that harms someone, they are arrested for murder, and the weapon is taken in as evidence.
Okay, now we'll talk about a hacked satellite dish box. Such boxes do NOT have substantial non-infringing uses. Their only viable use is to steal copyrighted presentation of satellite service. Even without the DMCA, you are guilty of contributory copyright infringement...and the illegal box should be taken in as evidence.
The DMCA causes problems when invoked where 'fair use' may be being used, such as in the Adobe E-Book case, where a piece of software that could be used to steal e-books could also be used to read a purchased book to a blind man, even if the e-book says 'no'.
Although I object to the DMCA, whether the DMCA or standard copyright law is invoked to arrest these people is irrelevant. If they've done what's claimed, they're guilty of standard copyright infringement and should be punished. This court case will not determine anything about the future of the DMCA or its paradoxes. It just happened to be used here.
Next time we get another Skylarov type case and it comes back not guilty, then there's more meat to go on.
But to summarize, a knife analogy is not reasonable here. If you're hacking satellite boxes that can theoretically receive signals you didn't pay for, you're going to have to do a lot of convincing to make 12 jurors believe you did it because you were interested in how the box worked and wanted to (legally) reverse engineer it.
If you disagree with that, then you're asking for a more broad right; that of engineers/geeks/technical people to do whatever they choose with technology for their own purposes. If a jury finds that whatever that technology is is primarily for an illegal act, you're going to get burned, no matter what you say.
It's just a simplification, and a jury that comes to the conclusion that an illegal satellite box has never been used for anything but to steal television will deliver a guilty verdict more often than not.
Re:Pretty Sad by Suidae · 2003-02-14 06:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

It used to be that you could use your own equipment to decode the signal you were legally paying for. Kind of like using DeCSS to watch DVD's you've legally obtained.

Course, with the DMCA, I don't know if thats still legal, since you are circumventing encryption regardless of if you have paid for it or not. The DMCA seems to have made possesion of knowledge of how to do the circumvention illegal.

IANAL and I have not read the DMCA. Thats just what it sounds like to a layman.
Re:Pretty Sad by Old+Uncle+Bill · 2003-02-14 07:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

What "satellite box" are you talking about? There is not "box" that gets hacked in this scenario. There is a card that can get hacked, but this is secondary. Let's take the example of an emulation setup for said devices. In this case, the datastream coming from the satellite provider can be logged on the emulation system without reverse engineering, "hacking", or modifying the conditional access system. One of the things the satellite provider may do is send signals down to your purchased system to alter the contents of its ROM, and change the functionality within your receiver. Any reverse engineering/hacking can be justified if it is to stop this alteration from occurring. To say that nothing legitimate can come from this hacking is obviously coming from someone that knows very little about how these systems work.

Their only viable use is to steal copyrighted presentation of satellite service
Not to be rude, but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about here. That statement is just as true as saying there is no legitimate use for DeCSS outside of making illegal copies of DVDs. The knife analogy stands here, you can reverse engineer anything you like, but as soon as you do something illegal (actually receive and watch these broadcasts, then yes, that should be prosecuted. Until that time, apparently you are guilty until proven innocent. Tell you what, go out to the net and order an ISO 7816 standard smart card programmer. I can almost guarantee you will receive a letter from DirecTV saying that you have done something illegal, and they expect you to pay them $3500 with no proof you have done anything and no due process. This will occur even if you have been using said programmer to code conditional access systems generally available (i.e. Sun's SunRay systems). Thank you for this broad generalization that justifies our current Gestapo regime. Because remember folks, those poor defenseless corporations need to be protected from us evil consumers out to get them.

--
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Re:Pretty Sad by tuxlove · 2003-02-14 07:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Did these people actually hack a satelite/feed?

How does one design a device for hacking a satellite feed without actually hacking the satellite feed?
Re:Pretty Sad by octalgirl · 2003-02-14 07:27 · Score: 1

Your post brings to mind a horrible thought. All of those little black cable boxes out there. In the past the cable companies haven't had a lot of luck prosecuting people caught with them. But under the DMCA, they could get a whole lotta years and fines enough to pay cable bills for the a whole town.
Re:Pretty Sad by arcadum · 2003-02-14 07:33 · Score: 0

Not to nit pick, but I think your already great arguement can be inproved by changing consumers to citizens.
Re:Pretty Sad by mitheral · 2003-02-14 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I'm paying for a full, every channel offered, satellite feed and then choose to see that feed with a box of electronics of my own design it shouldn't be illegal. After all I have paid for the content of the feed I just don't want to use the provided reciever to send it to my TV.
Re:Pretty Sad by GTRacer · 2003-02-14 08:04 · Score: 0, Offtopic

What is this, fscking Minority Report?
It's funny you bring up that awful movie. I recently had a run-in with Parking Enforcement at my building's garage. I pulled into the entrance to ask for directions to the overflow lot, as my assigned lot was full.
After a brief check of my car's parking sticker, I get the directions, but have my badge confiscated! I was told merely pulling into the entrance was a parking violation! So, asking for help got me in trouble with my boss *and* I was late, as I had to put up with the citation process and then go to the off-site lot!
I tried to use the "Minority Report" argument that even if I was going to cheat and drive up the ramp, I didn't, yet was still charged as such. And the ass-jack made me turn around. So how am I violating parking policy again?
GTRacer
- ...(if I can't say something nice)

--
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

It is a law... but it's not right. And we need to fight as a people to remove it. If we give up and just say, oh well, it's a law, then we're screwed forever after.
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

If a tree branch hangs in my yard, I have the right to cut that branch down. It's in my space. When you beam a single down, into my yard, then it's not your signal.. but mine. And if I can open it up, and see what's inside... I damn sure will. Now, if I can tell you not to beam it into my yard anymore and you stop. Then fine. But I can't, and you wouldn't, so it's my signal.
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:23 · Score: 0

What if I'm hacking the satellite feed for which
I paid, and only accessing the channels for which I paid? What if I don't release this information or allow anyone else to use it? What if I want to do this for making a fair use backup copy of the satellite signal for which I paid?
Re:Pretty Sad by tuxlove · 2003-02-14 08:25 · Score: 1

Good point. Did they?
Re:Pretty Sad by Comen · 2003-02-14 10:10 · Score: 0

Um i dont think there is such a thing dude.

Gezz some of you gguys jsut done watch TV i know this, but there are things like PayPerVeiw and also alot of PORN channels that are unlocked that are not in a one prive gets all fee like you are talking about.
I dont think you can pay a set fee and vet all pay per veiw and all porn channels, most porn channels are a PPV type thang also.
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:35 · Score: 0

Two little problems:

First, if you've paid for it, you can record the decrypted signal without any hacking.

Second, there is no such thing as a "fair use backup" of a broadcast signal you receive.
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:49 · Score: 0

Okay, now we'll talk about a hacked satellite dish box. Such boxes do NOT have substantial non-infringing uses. Their only viable use is to steal copyrighted presentation of satellite service. Even without the DMCA, you are guilty of contributory copyright infringement...and the illegal box should be taken in as evidence.

What if you want to study the culture television? Or you find a partiticular networks message troubling to society, yourself, etc?

You can also use a photocopier to try to copy money. That doesn't mean Kinkos is full of counterfitters. Satellite studiers may be small but America has never been about just bowing down to majority rules.
Re:Pretty Sad by apecoraro · 2003-02-14 12:06 · Score: 1

Okay, now we'll talk about a hacked satellite dish box. Such boxes do NOT have substantial non-infringing uses. Their only viable use is to steal copyrighted presentation of satellite service. Even without the DMCA, you are guilty of contributory copyright infringement...and the illegal box should be taken in as evidence.
I don't understand what they are stealing? Certainly making copies of the shows that are transmitted by the satellite signal and then reselling them is a crime, but by rearranging the data into a format that is easier for the human eye to see (in other words decrypting the signal) what are you stealing? DirectTV might say that you are stealing the money they would get from your monthly subscription dues. But in reality DirectTV is not selling the show that you can see by decrypting the signal, they are selling you the ability to decrypt the signal in the first place. The signal is free, you get the signal in your home even if you don't have a satellite tv box, heck even if you don't have a tv!

I'll admit that I am not an expert on the law, but I would guess that if I wrote a book, copyrighted it, encrypted it, then went around throwing it in people's backyards and trying to sell those people my decrypter in order to read it, which is basically what the satellite company does with their satellite signal. If then someone learned how to decrypt my book and told their friends how to decrypt my book, I think I would have a hard time charging them with theft seeing as how I forced my book on them in the first place. Of course if selling encrypted books that are haphazardly thrown into people's backyard's suddenly became a billion dollar industry I have a hunch that pressing charges would magically become a whole lot easier.
Re:Pretty Sad by geekee · 2003-02-14 12:45 · Score: 1

These are people who hack or bypass the smart card technology to allow access to directtv without paying for it. They make a lot of money, selling the cards for around $400, with support included to fight directtv antipiracy.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Pretty Sad by BitterOak · 2003-02-14 15:39 · Score: 1

Even without the DMCA, you are guilty of contributory copyright infringement...
One minor problem here. Unless the users are taping the shows their receiving, there is no copying going on here at all, so conventional copyright law doesn't apply. This is a DMCA violation, not copyright infringement, direct or contributory.
That said, I do think this is actually the kind of behavior the DMCA was designed to stop, and I don't feel too sorry for those that got arrested. They weren't enabling blind people to read e-books, or Linux users to watch their DVDs. Their boxes had only one purpose: to pirate satellite signals. So I don't feel too sorry for them.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:Pretty Sad by debest · 2003-02-14 16:24 · Score: 1

Classified information and trade secrets are a different case: these are content that was created by a person/corporation who never intended the content to be distributed (openly anyways).

The DMCA forbids distributing content that you (or someone else) created and wants to distribute! They are outlawing the practice of communicating how to reverse-engineer a piece of "protected" content.

The first case is not a "freedom of speech" issue (since you were never free to speak of the content in the first place). The second (DMCA) most certainly is.

--
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-15 04:18 · Score: 0

what if you paid the satellite bill and messed with the box anyway?
Re:Pretty Sad by akmed · 2003-02-15 07:23 · Score: 1

I would imagine that the contract you have with the provider would include a bit authorizing them to send the signals and alter the contents of the ROM. As such, if nothing else, by blocking that you're in breach of contract, though the damages would be negligible.

Apparently you haven't heard of laws about the possession of burglar's tools. These laws are very old and very much accepted. Having a hacked card and receiving satellite tv with it can easily land you in court on a possession of burglar's tools charge.

You can generally reverse engineer things, but if the thing you are reverse engineering is covered by a patent and the sale contract specifically said you cannot so do then you'd be in violation of patent law.

If you're using that ISO 7816 standard smart card programmer for a legitimate purpose (i.e. you work on SunRay systems or the like) you can respond to them that you have a legitimate purpose for having one of these and you ordered it for that purpose and they should not be expecting a check anytime soon. Should they try to bring you into court (doubtful) you'd win, absent a stack of hacked satellite cards in your house. If, on the other hand, you only have a satellite card and do not work on conditional access systems then once again you'll likely get hit for possession of burglar's tools (especially if your card is modified).

Because all of the above are pretty weak crimes and result in small damages even though the crimes are hard to detect and involve a large group of people, the legislature decided to adopt a law that would take these existing crimes and give stronger remedies against them in this circumstance. Whether they got it right will be seen, but the courts will deal with that as things come up.

The "poor defenseless corporations" aren't seeking protection from the "evil consumers" but rather from evil criminals. What's the difference between violating a law that's a few years old and violating a law that's a couple hundred years old? That's right, it's NOTHING. If you think these corporations are really so horribly bad, stop supporting them. And if enough other people thing there bad and do the same thing then those corporations will change their tune or sink. But don't start considering yourself some shepherd of the ignorant masses being horribly oppressed by evil laws. People know when they don't like something and if they don't like it enough they'll act. But the solution to something you don't like is not lawlessness, unless you'd honestly rather be in prison than live in a society that condones or forbids the act you think is wrong or right. Maybe you'll win and won't end up in jail, but don't bet your life on it until your willing to take the consequences.
Re:Pretty Sad by Wolfrider · 2003-02-15 17:06 · Score: 1

--I'm worried that if convicted and found guilty, this will give "legitimacy" (or at least the "feel" of it) to the DMCA, which is what the lawyers want.

--BTW, if the DMCA is *repealed* does that mean that they will then have to be set free??

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:Pretty Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-15 17:47 · Score: 0

Wrong on all counts! You could be more wrong, but it would have to involve religion!

well.... by tx_mgm · 2003-02-14 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

looks like a legitimate case. the DMCA does enforce some issues that do need to be enforced. I agree that these people were in the wrong...but on the whole I still think the DMCA needs some serious re-writing.

--
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird

Re:well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:18 · Score: 0

http://profiles.yahoo.com/tx_mgm

Happy spam day. You have just been subscribed and spammed yahoo employees worldwide.
Re:well.... by The+Wing+Lover · 2003-02-14 05:35 · Score: 1

DirecTV won't sell me their service because of where I live. It is impossible for me to pay DirecTV. It doesn't cost them one thin dime if I steal their service, as they *will not allow me* to give them money. So why shouldn't I decrypt the information? Why should people go to jail if they help me decrypt the information?

--
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
Re:well.... by tx_mgm · 2003-02-14 05:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

DirecTV won't sell me their service because of where I live.....as they *will not allow me* to give them money. So why shouldn't I decrypt the information?

maybe that could be a good argument if it were true...if you are on the internet, then id say your chances of being out of range of any kind of cable provider are slim to none.
plus, them not wanting to sell you service is their right and does NOT entitle you to steal their service, regardless of how little money the lose from your actions (and, yes...stealing satellite cable does still cost them resources)! For example, if i had the money, i would want to buy myself a harrier jet...but guess what, I WONT GET ONE! why not? because the military wont sell it to me! so does that give me the right to break into a military compound and STEAL one? i think not!

--
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
Re:well.... by osgeek · 2003-02-14 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

DirecTV won't sell me their service because of where I live.

Then move.

So why shouldn't I decrypt the information?

Whether or not it costs them money is only part of the problem. The bottom line is that it's their content, and they get to decide who gets it and for how much.

Why should people go to jail if they help me decrypt the information?

Because it's not their content either. While they're breaking the law, you can't seriously think that they're going to make sure that only people who *can't* buy DirecTV are going to gain access to their circumvention hardware/software. It's not their content, not their responsibility, and not for them to decide.

Another argument is that if you don't get the content through satellite, and it's important to you, then you'll rent/buy DVDs. Thus, content producers will be compensated for their efforts in one way or another.

I know it's convenient. I know it's fun. I know it's cheap. I know that it's nice to have. I know that there are rationalizations for having it.

It's still stealing.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:well.... by The+Wing+Lover · 2003-02-14 06:00 · Score: 1

Then move.
Yeah, the United States seems strangely unenthusiastic about people from other countries just moving in, for some reason.

It's still stealing.

Oh, I never said it wasn't. I just don't feel bad about it.

--
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
Re:well.... by Sparr0 · 2003-02-14 06:00 · Score: 1

of course, you could always just sue Pepsi if you want a Harrier.
Re:well.... by PhilHibbs · 2003-02-14 06:02 · Score: 1
(and, yes...stealing satellite cable does still cost them resources)
1. What is "satellite cable", and
2. how does reveiving a satellite signal cost them money?
Note that I don't entirely disagree with your general opinion that signal hacking is illegal, but neither do I agree with your reasoning.
Re:well.... by tx_mgm · 2003-02-14 06:15 · Score: 1

ah, well yeah....calling it "satellite cable" is probably stupid...of course, you probably already understand that i meant satellite broadcasted television signal...usually what is referred to as "cable tv"
as for cost issue...people NOT paying for their service is definitely not good for business, im sure you can agree with that....now you just have to realize that once the signal is decrypted, that information (how to decrypt the signal) will be spread around to anyone wanting to drop that monthly bill, and dont kid yourself: the people who cracked the signal know this and would definitely accept some cash in exchange for this info....so DirecTV now has to be constantly investing in R&D just to keep ahead of the people hacking the signal and sharing their methods.
so, yes...directly, there is nothing lost by "grabbing the signal" already coming to your house....but it still ends up costing money to the provider down the line

--
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
Re:well.... by osgeek · 2003-02-14 06:22 · Score: 1

It's still stealing.

Oh, I never said it wasn't. I just don't feel bad about it.

Heh, good point.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:well.... by mark_lybarger · 2003-02-14 06:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

The bottom line is that it's their content, and they get to decide who gets it and for how much.

it stops being their content the moment it reaches my property.

DirectTV has a flawed business model and wants to use laws to keep it going. They have a serious technological problem that they need to correct somehow, not punish people for taking advantage of their failed delivery mechanism.

just because it might seem wrong doesn't make it stealing. they're giving the signal to lots of people with the hope that you'll buy their dish and pay them monthly. i'm sorry, but that signal becomes mine the instant it enters my property. by the same logic, if you drive your car into my driveway, does it become mine? no, but i can tell you to get the fsck outta my driveway and have it towed away if i want to. how's about these folks just get their signal off my land if it's theirs.
Re:well.... by __aawsxp7741 · 2003-02-14 06:32 · Score: 1

It's still stealing.

He's not taking away their content, so this can hardly be called stealing.
Re:well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

The bottom line is that it's their content, and they get to decide who gets it

By beaming the signal out across North America, haven't they decided that everyone gets it?
Re:well.... by diablobynight · 2003-02-14 06:45 · Score: 1

>Oh, I never said it wasn't. I just don't feel >bad about it. Which is why I am fine with them putting you in jail for it. I pay for mine and if your sucky country that isn't the U.S. doesn't have direct TV than put up your own damn sattelite.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:well.... by osgeek · 2003-02-14 06:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

DirectTV has a flawed business model and wants to use laws to keep it going.

What're you talking about? It's a great business model that uses EM radiation to deliver content to millions of people who appreciate having that option. Why should we ditch the wonderful benefits of satellite dish reception of various types of signals because a few people feel they have the misguided right to everything in the universe that's within their reach.

They have a serious technological problem that they need to correct somehow, not punish people for taking advantage of their failed delivery mechanism.

Bah. Homeowners wouldn't even have any clue of that satellite signal, if they were obsessing over the whole "It passes through my house!" nonsense. Calling it a "failed delivery mechanism" is unreasonable. Homeowners decrypting the signal aren't just stumbling across something in their living room, they're actively employing sophisticated technological devices to take something that isn't theirs.

DirecTV makes a reasonable effort to scramble their signal, and they shouldn't have to constantly expend development and legal force to prevent weasels from trying to steal their content.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:well.... by bearclaw · 2003-02-14 08:31 · Score: 1

it stops being their content the moment it reaches my property.

So if the USPS delivers my mail to your house, then you have the right to open it? (HINT: The answer is NO.)

Cable companies sometimes lay cable through other people's property along streets to hit each house. But that doesn't mean you can just decide to hook up cable to your place.

People are just greedy and expect something for nothing. Lock their asses up.

--
-- bearclaw
Re:well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:08 · Score: 0

That's pretty cool. Was the case resolved? It seems to be old.

Can one even legally own a Harrier jet? I suspect the weapons mounts might be illegal at least. And I'm not sure what kind of licence you need to fly it in Washington airspace. ;)
Re:well.... by titzandkunt · 2003-02-14 11:08 · Score: 0

"...DirectTV has a flawed business model..."

Every friggin' time I read the phrase "business model" on this board, it becomes transmuted (by some form of verbal alchemy) into "I should get a ton of stuff for free".

Nauseating.

T&K.

--
Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
Re:well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 11:24 · Score: 0

what are you talking about ?? I never asked them to send the signal, they are sending it, if they are sending it, it means its free to recieve. And since its a free signal, I should be able to process however I want. Whats next? FM Radio for which I haveto pay? Or some denoise filter that is illegal because it makes the signal too close to cd quality? blah.
Re:well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 11:44 · Score: 0

If a cable company lays cable through your property they need to have an easement, which usually involves them giving you money to do it unless you're altruistic.
Re:well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 12:10 · Score: 0

The USPS doesn't deliberately deliver mail to mailboxes that it doesn't belong in.
Re:well.... by evil_one · 2003-02-14 12:17 · Score: 1

you're either stupid, trolling, or sadly uninformed. Having read your other posts on the topic, I suspect all three. Regardless, here's a legimate response.
Canada has 2 DTH providers, each with dual satellite broadcast capability. One is Bell ExpressVu, the other is StarChoice. ExpressVu uses Dish Network technology, StarChoice uses Motorola (nee General Instrument) technology.
This changes nothing.
In Canada, there are 2 licenced broadcasters for DBS . I've named them above.
This means that DirecTV and Dish signals are NOT protected when they enter Canadian airspace, the same way that Canadian DBS signals aren't protected when they enter U.S. airspace.

--
Desperation is a stinky cologne
Re:well.... by really? · 2003-02-14 15:43 · Score: 1

So if the USPS delivers my mail to your house, then you have the right to open it? (HINT: The answer is NO.)

But if the USPS delivers a sealed envelope where the name and address have been, accidentally or not, washed out, into my mailbox I do have the right to look inside, no? Else how would I know if it's mine or not? If I may open it, I need a paper knife to do it. The same paper knife can, of course, be used to open your mail, should it end up in my mailbox.
So, should I not be prosecuted based on whether or not I used my paper knife to open YOUR mail, rather than based on whether I have a paper knife?

--

"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
Re:well.... by intermodal · 2003-02-14 18:28 · Score: 1

WTF are you talking about, great business model. It may be great for shareholders, but it sure as hell isn't good for the public, and what isn't good for the public has no right to be backed by law. That is the nature of how and why the constitution was written, whether this violates the letter or not. It certainly violates the spirit. Let's see...

"oooh...for only twice what i can get TV from a cable for, i can get it from a satellite! And satellites are shiny! oooooooo....shiny."

dude, if this is sophisticated technology, then a net is sophisticated fishing technology. If I hook up two 486 boxes together, does that not make them more sophisticated than a standalone 486? yes. Likewise, the more technology I have, the more it takes to be sophisticated. Therefore, this technology is no more sophisticated than email on my Athlon going to my friend's Pentium 4 via PGP via wireless ethernet web access. Something many of us do daily. If someone were to crack my huge PGP key, I would not go blaming them. Encryption is there for a reason, and if people crack it, then get better security. It's that simple. Sure, this may alienate a few customers who don't want to pony up for new cards, but if their network means a damn to them, they will secure it rather than crying to mommy that billy used their ball because they threw it to him.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:well.... by SmittyTheBold · 2003-02-14 23:06 · Score: 1

"oooh...for only twice what i can get TV from a cable for, i can get it from a satellite! And satellites are shiny! oooooooo....shiny."

I don't know what planet you're on, but expanded basic cable where I live costs $38 per month. That's roughly fifty channels. This is also analog cable, mind you. DirecTV's Total Choice package is less than $35 per month, and has a better (IMO) selction of channels. The only downside is the lack of local channels for my area. Total Choice Plus offers even more channels for about the same rate as our current cable bill.

If I could get local channels through the DTV receiver, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

(The reason that is a big deal to me is my TiVo. The DirecTiVos may have dual-stream capability, but they have no actual MPEG encoder on-board. Considering that half the shows we record are on network TV, the only viable solution to us is regular DTV with our current stand-alone TiVo, which seems like a relatively poor option to me.)

--
± 29 dB
Re:well.... by intermodal · 2003-02-15 20:32 · Score: 1

not arguing with you there...however, there is no good reason why the same service cannot be available on land lines. I phrased things horribly, i admit

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:well.... by SmittyTheBold · 2003-02-17 06:52 · Score: 1

I think they key cost is infrastructure. Running cable to every house is expensive, especially in rural areas. As I'm sure you can infer, it's just not profitable to run cable to the farmhouse three miles out from the nearest Midwestern town.

The sat companies traded physical security for technological security, and they're seeing the effects of it. There's not so much risk of a person tapping into physical lines, and there is a clear legal basis when it comes to a person tapping a cable, while intercepting a signal is a little more fuzzy in people's minds.

I suppose the thing to remember is that rights to the airwaves are rather similar to mining rights. It's separare from normal ownership of property. Because what goes over the air affects those around you, the government reserves all ownership, doling out bandwidth as it sees fit. That's what the FCC does, you realize - sell the right to your air. You're lucky they let you use it at all... ;)

--
± 29 dB

That's nothing new... by sterno · 2003-02-14 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you give out some kinds of information that's treason. Other kinds of information may get you in civil court for violation of intellectual property agreements. Giving out false information can be fraud. This is not such a novel concept.

Frankly this is the only application of the DMCA that I've seen to date that I think is reasonable. You've got people creating devices to decrypt copyrighted material that people could legitimately pay for and play in any manner they wanted to. I've got DirecTV, and I can certainly record the shows, and excerpt them for commentary, etc. There's no reason that you need to decrypt these signals, save for not having to pay for them.

--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service

Re:That's nothing new... by Thing+1 · 2003-02-14 05:40 · Score: 1

You've got people creating devices to decrypt copyrighted material that people could legitimately pay for and play in any manner they wanted to.

The delivery mechanism is flawed. They're beaming it right into my house.
If they don't want me to listen, then stop beaming!
There are more secure delivery methods, such as that used by cable.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:That's nothing new... by geekoid · 2003-02-14 05:52 · Score: 1

What if I just want to decrypt them as an intellectual exercise?

It is perfectly legal to own/build your own cable descrambler. The moment you turn on the signal to your house without the cable companies permission is when you violate the law. If the cable company turns on the signal to your house accidently, you do not have to pay for it. This applies to any device that runs into your home(ex. you no longer have to own a phone sold/leased by the phone company to use the telehone service).

They are sending a signal through my home and body, certianly I have a right to determine what that signal is?

There business method is flawed, we should not have to pay the price for there poor business model.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:That's nothing new... by pizzaman100 · 2003-02-14 05:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The delivery mechanism is flawed. They're beaming it right into my house.
Electricity is sent right to my house. Does that means I can go screw with the meter and get free power?
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Perhaps more secure, yes, but that still doesn't give people the right to disobey the laws that govern them. Even if they beamed it out entirely unencrypted, if there was a law against retrieving the signal without paying the proper amount to the company providing it, it would still be against the -law- to do so.

Added to that, I might also note that without a proper device for translating the signal you do not "listen" to anything -- unless you are intentionally attempting to decode and view a satellite transmission, you are forced to "hear" nothing at all.

I really don't get people like you. You justify thievery for reasons that don't really make sense, and you believe it your right to steal on technicalities. Stealing is still illegal no matter how you try to distance yourself from the crime.
Re:That's nothing new... by Grishnakh · 2003-02-14 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

No, because you have an agreement with the electric company that they'll connect your house to their power grid and supply you with power, in exchange for them putting a meter on your house and charging you by the amount used. If you don't like that, they'll remove the meter and the power line, and you can live without electricity.

Cable is the same way; if you don't pay for it, they'll come and disconnect it. If they're too lazy or incompetent to disconnect it, then you can watch CATV for free, legally. I do this right now, in fact.

Satellite signals are totally different. They're beaming those into your house whether you pay or not. If you're not a paying customer, but you're still receiving the signals, why can't you build equipment to receive them? If I recall the Federal Communications Act of 1936, it states that people can receive any radio signal they wish. Sure, you have to crack the encryption to turn that signal into something watchable, but as long as the information used to crack the encryption wasn't gained illegally (like by breaking into DirecTV's R&D center), and only by reverse engineering, what's the problem? If they don't want people "stealing" their signal, they shouldn't be sending to the whole country for free. If their current encryption scheme is insufficient to deter or prevent reverse engineering, they should devise a better scheme.
Re:That's nothing new... by Cosmos_7 · 2003-02-14 06:02 · Score: 0

I find it sad that people no longer believe they should have any rights. And property rights should be somewhere very near the top of the list. In this instance, satellite companies are beaming signal onto your property without your permission. They should have absolutely no say in what you do with it once it's on your property, unless you've entered into a contract with them to the contrary.

Contracts and easements should be the a company's protection, not a governmental mandate...
Re:That's nothing new... by siskbc · 2003-02-14 06:05 · Score: 1

If you give out some kinds of information that's treason. Other kinds of information may get you in civil court for violation of intellectual property agreements. Giving out false information can be fraud. This is not such a novel concept.
OK, fair enough. Let's look at the categories of info that are illegal to give out. First, information that is dangerous to national security (treason). No doubter there. Second, information that isn't true, as stated, can be fraudulent. Information you have been trusted with (insider trading, release of trade secrets, etc) can be illegal too. Also, information you steal (opening mail, Mitnick-ing).
However, this is the first time I can think of that you can be busted for releasing information that is NOT dangerous to the country (Oh God! DirecTV has been h4X0r3d!!!), is NOT false, and NOT entrusted to the person releasing it - ie, he figured it out on his own. And really, this is NOT stealing, again in the sense he figured out on his own (he didn't hack them to steal the plans). Note that he doesn't actually have to take the SERVICE to get busted here - although that's a different argument, too.
This is pretty scary to me.
Can anyone think of a prior situation that fits these three scenarios?

--
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Re:That's nothing new... by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 06:07 · Score: 1

There's no reason that you need to decrypt these signals, save for not having to pay for them.
Congratulations, you're helping give your rights away!
I don't have DirecTV, and have never signed any contracts or had any contact with that company. DirecTV stuck a satellite up in orbit that shoots signals at my house and through my own body every day. I don't NEED a reason to decrypt those signals, what I do with them is my personal business. Maybe I want to decrypt them and display the raw binary on a giant projection TV because I find it strangely erotic. Screw off, that's my own damn business.
When are you people going to quit eating the corporate philosophy, wake up, and start holding on to your rights?
Re:That's nothing new... by sterno · 2003-02-14 06:12 · Score: 1

Fine, decrypt it as an intellectual excercise. It's only when you distribute equipment to other people that you cross the line.

They are sending radio signals. Do you have a right to determine what it is? No. What makes you think you do. The FCC controls wireless networks, if you had a right to do what you wanted with radio waves, then the FCC would be illegal.

--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Re:That's nothing new... by Thing+1 · 2003-02-14 06:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

I really don't get people like you. You justify thievery for reasons that don't really make sense, and you believe it your right to steal on technicalities. Stealing is still illegal no matter how you try to distance yourself from the crime.

I don't steal satellite transmissions and I most likely never will. However, I refuse to support a business which goes to the courts to resolve its security issues, rather than improving its business model.
Just like the buggy whip manufacturers tried to create a law saying there had to be a horse in front of a moving carriage.
It's simple really: they have no right to invade my property with their signals. And as another poster said, according to the Federal Communications Act of 1936, it states that people can receive any radio signal they wish.
Like I said, I'm no pirate, but I do not agree with laws that prevent people from sharing information about how to break laws. The crime is in the breaking of the law, not teaching someone how to shoot a gun.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:That's nothing new... by curiosity · 2003-02-14 06:42 · Score: 1

Do you also have the right to listen to people's cell phone conversations that "travel through your body"?

Do you have the right to tap into the cable on the curb and watch free TV? Do you have the right to splice into your neighbor's phone line to bill your calls to him?

The fact that the medium is radio waves rather than a cable doesn't give you the right to the content. It's irrelevant.

DirecTV distributes copyrighted material to customers who pay for it. Stealing that signal is no different from any other intellectual property theft. If you want to argue that not paying for copyrighted information is OK, that's a different argument.
Re:That's nothing new... by fliplap · 2003-02-14 07:00 · Score: 1

"Do you have the right to tap into the cable on the curb and watch free TV? Do you have the right to splice into your neighbor's phone line to bill your calls to him?"

Whats my neighbor doing running his phone cable through my body? Whats the cable company need to run its cable through my body for?

And yeah, if you're using a cell phone, and its not digital, and not encrypted, you better believe I'm gonna be able to listen to it. And hey, if it IS digital and IS encrypted and I figure out how to translate it into human speech, I'm gonna listen to that too.

Frankly, if you're broadcast your signal through my head, and I find a way to understand what you're trying to say, it shouldn't be illegal
Re:That's nothing new... by op00to · 2003-02-14 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Uhh, no. You have the right to do whatever you want with whatever radio waves you want. The "cell phone" exception is only there because congress didn't want people listening in on their cell phone conversations. Do you want to listen to the police? Go right ahead, if you can recieve it, you can listen to it. Do you want to download NASA telemetry? Once again, if you can get it, it's yours. Do you want to use the recieved signals to commit a crime? That's illegal. I like listening in to my local police departments because it gives me a heads up on where traffic might be. Recieving satellite signals is no different. If you use that information you recieve (scrambled data) to commit a crime ("copyrite infringement" or whatever the hell it is), that is illegal. The FCC has no control over that frequencies you listen to. All the FCC controls is who can transmit on what frequency. That's it, buddy.
Re:That's nothing new... by Zathrus · 2003-02-14 07:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

you don't like that, they'll remove the meter and the power line, and you can live without electricity

Not likely.

What they will do is tell the meter to no longer deliver power to you. Removing the meter and power line is likely to be: A) too expensive, B) illegal (since in most locales in the US a building without power is not qualified as liveable - turning it off is one thing, removing the ability to deliver is another).

Now if you go turn that meter on, are you just "using the emissions already on your property" or are you illegally using service? The same holds true for most utilities such as water and gas, where in most residential neighborhoods the tap is controlled by a valve on your property. Doesn't mean you get to jack around with it though.

Heck, look at your freaking mailbox -- it's paid for by you, installed by you (or by a contractor), and on your land. Destroy it, or contents within, and it's a federal violation. You don't own it.

If I recall the Federal Communications Act of 1936

I suggest the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1936 Act was almost entirely rewritten by it. (And Judge Green probably rejoiced at its passing... he didn't expect to be the sole regulator of the telephone industry for 30+ years).

You most certainly cannot receive and decode any transmission you wish. Doing so to cellular telephones is illegal, as are military channels. Beamed sat transmission isn't either one of these, obviously, but there's precedent against "don't broadcast into my house!".

Heck, for that matter, would you like the inverse to be true? The Supreme Court ruled against police using passive detection methods such as heat radiation without a search warrant. By your logic, they should have been able to - since if you didn't want them to use such a method you should've prevented the heat from irradiating out from your walls.

I can see the arguments both ways, and I don't like the DMCA in the slightest (and suspect that the people involved in this case could have been prosecuted under other laws), but the whole "quit beaming at me" argument is absolutely absurd.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Do you also have the right to listen to people's cell phone conversations that "travel through your body"?

You bet! Secure those phones if you don't want people tapping in.

Do you have the right to tap into the cable on the curb and watch free TV? Do you have the right to splice into your neighbor's phone line to bill your calls to him?

Nope, this is completely different and you're just confusing the issue - now if the neighbor was running their phone or cable in through one window of my house and out the other without any agreement then maybe.

The fact that the medium is radio waves rather than a cable doesn't give you the right to the content. It's irrelevant.

Sure it does - if the medium is intruding onto my property without permission it's mine.

DirecTV distributes copyrighted material to customers who pay for it.

Fine, don't send the signal to me then - I didn't ask for it. It's also not my fault if the medium you choose is flawed enough to not be able to prevent that.
Re:That's nothing new... by wonkamaster · 2003-02-14 07:12 · Score: 1

I disagree.

I've also got DirecTV, and last time I checked they broadcast right to my house. Why shouldn't I be able to decrypt these signals? If they don't want me to watch the material then stop sending it to me!

Perhaps the rationale could work for me. I am retaining copyright to this message. I'm encrypting it in ASCII. You may or may not know how to decode it, but if you do read it then you are in violation of the DMCA because I don't want you reading it. The fact that I sent this message right to you in a format you could interpret does not play into it. You used tools that you may or may not have developed yourself, and you read my copyrighted work.

Go to jail.
Re:That's nothing new... by Kierthos · 2003-02-14 07:12 · Score: 1

I hear you on the Cable thing. In one of the apartments I used to live in, we ending up having free cable for oh, about 10 months. Here's the kicker... we wanted to pay for it, because while the free cable we were getting had a good number of channels, we wanted to get HBO as well (okay, mostly for the Dennis Miller show, but hey...)

Called the cable company an inordinate number of times to try and get them to come out. Every time when we told them that we were already getting cable for free but we wanted to start an account with them and add HBO, the clueless numbfuck at the other end of the phone refused to go any further. "You already have cable. You're obviously not going through us. You'll have to find out which company you're dealing with." As if TW didn't have a monopoly on cable in town...

Near the end of that 10 months, apparently they fired every incompetent operator, as they suddenly sent a cable repairman out to us, who finally hooked up HBO, and tried to present us with a bill for 10 months of cable. We told him what he could do with his bill, and the law student who lived in the apartment had about a 30 minute discussion with the local TW reps. We ended up not paying for those 10 months at all, getting another 2 months free, and a $100 credit to our account for any other channels or PPVs.

Kierthos

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re:That's nothing new... by pwtrash · 2003-02-14 07:14 · Score: 1

That's a great point.
The part of this that bothers me is that the folks doing this profited from it. The end result of allowing this to stand is a reduced incentive to provide content. For example, if I put up a satellite and anyone else can legally decrypt the info and sell it for less while I try to recoup my investment in the satellite, why would I send the satellite up there?
Either content provision/distribution needs to be socialized, or we have to protect their investment for some period of time.
I still hate the DMCA, but this should be prevented.
Re:That's nothing new... by mkldev · 2003-02-14 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you also have the right to listen to people's cell phone conversations that "travel through your body"?
That becomes an invasion of privacy, which is protected by various laws. TV channels are not people, though, and thus have no right to privacy. Completely wrong analogy.
Do you have the right to tap into the cable on the curb and watch free TV? Do you have the right to splice into your neighbor's phone line to bill your calls to him?
The cable tower at the curb is the property of the cable company. That's trespassing. Again, wrong analogy.
The fact that the medium is radio waves rather than a cable doesn't give you the right to the content. It's irrelevant.
Actually, it does give you the right to the scrambled/encrypted content. It just doesn't give you the right to descramble/decrypt it. This has already been upheld in the descrambler trials back in the 80s. So while you're right, you're also wrong.
Stealing that signal is no different from any other intellectual property theft.
Actually, it is very different. It is akin to someone handing a reporter a classified document. Is the reporter liable? They aren't supposed to be. The person doing the handing is liable. In the same vein, if DirecTV signals were not encrypted, they would be similarly liable. Only the encryption protects them, both technically and legally.

--
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:21 · Score: 0

Strawman argument alert!
The "you beamed your signals at me" argument is so invalid it hurts. Unless DirecTV is purposely directing its signals at your house, you have no legal standing to believe that DirecTV somehow wants you to use those signals.
How about if we look at the inverse. Would you like it if the police could use heat radiation to detect if there were any illegal activities being conducted in your house? Probably not, but if you don't want the police to do this, then you should've prevented the heat in your house from irradiating outside your walls and into the street.
(Note: that practice was ruled illegal by the SCOTUS.)
If you think you somehow have the right to do what you wish with a transmission that somehow bounces off your domain, read up on the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Or better yet, try and eavesdrop on U.S. military communications, and see how long your argument will hold up before you are tried for espionage.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:29 · Score: 0

No, for most residential customers, they'll come out and flip the big handled switch on the outside of the power meter that has the sealed dongle on it to shut off your power, and put a new sealed dongle on it to encourage you to not turn it back on.

Just like if your water gets shut off, they have a sealed valve close to your house that they physically turn off (out here in Hainesville, IL, they just have the 5-sided bolt head to turn off in the middle of your yard or driveway, like on fire hydrants).

Power, water and gas are not quite like phones, Digital Cable TV, DirectTv, etc., where they can turn you on or off from a central console...
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:31 · Score: 0

You can destroy your own mailbox and the contents in it (what if you want to replace yours? You have to destroy the old one...). It is against federal law for someone else to destroy yours...

Like anyone who has ever run over, smashed, blown up with M-80's, etc., ever been convicted in federal court of doing this...
Re:That's nothing new... by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 07:33 · Score: 1

The "you beamed your signals at me" argument is so invalid it hurts. Unless DirecTV is purposely directing its signals at your house, you have no legal standing to believe that DirecTV somehow wants you to use those signals.
What the hell are you talking about? DirecTV accidentally sent that satellite up?! Some tech "tripped" into a big red button and turned it on so it started broadcasting? They chose a public medium and started sending signals inside my house without my knowledge or consent. They're mine now, dammit.
How about if we look at the inverse. Would you like it if the police could use heat radiation to detect if there were any illegal activities being conducted in your house? Probably not, but if you don't want the police to do this, then you should've prevented the heat in your house from irradiating outside your walls and into the street.
Different argument, now we're talking about government invasion of privacy. Invalid.
If you think you somehow have the right to do what you wish with a transmission that somehow bounces off your domain, read up on the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Or better yet, try and eavesdrop on U.S. military communications, and see how long your argument will hold up before you are tried for espionage.
Riiiiight. DirecTV transmissions are being compared to national security interests. Pure genius, pal. Guess that's why they call 'em Anonymous Cowards.
Re:That's nothing new... by Grishnakh · 2003-02-14 08:10 · Score: 1

What they will do is tell the meter to no longer deliver power to you. Removing the meter and power line is likely to be: A) too expensive, B) illegal (since in most locales in the US a building without power is not qualified as liveable - turning it off is one thing, removing the ability to deliver is another).

They only turn it off because they expect you to pay your bill and ask them to turn it back on. There's no law requiring you to stay on the grid that I'm aware of, and if you go turn the meter back on without paying the bill, they'd probably at least disconnect you entirely.

Now if you go turn that meter on, are you just "using the emissions already on your property" or are you illegally using service? The same holds true for most utilities such as water and gas, where in most residential neighborhoods the tap is controlled by a valve on your property. Doesn't mean you get to jack around with it though.

Heck, look at your freaking mailbox -- it's paid for by you, installed by you (or by a contractor), and on your land. Destroy it, or contents within, and it's a federal violation. You don't own it.

The water and gas connections aren't on your property: they're on the easement. As is the mailbox. You're responsible for maintaining the grounds there, but you don't actually own it; the government does.

You most certainly cannot receive and decode any transmission you wish. Doing so to cellular telephones is illegal, as are military channels. Beamed sat transmission isn't either one of these, obviously, but there's precedent against "don't broadcast into my house!".

This is untrue. You can listen in on cellphones all you want; you can even buy scanners to listen to the old 800MHz analog phones. You can't buy them new anymore, but if you can find an old one, you can listen all you want. You don't actually think they'd retroactively ban equipment, do you?

Heck, for that matter, would you like the inverse to be true? The Supreme Court ruled against police using passive detection methods such as heat radiation without a search warrant. By your logic, they should have been able to - since if you didn't want them to use such a method you should've prevented the heat from irradiating out from your walls.

Actually, I don't see much wrong with this. Why would I care if police can see my heat signature? What are they going to see, how many people I have in my house? That there's two cats inside? That my car's engine is still warm?
Re:That's nothing new... by Grishnakh · 2003-02-14 08:19 · Score: 1

Generally, the idea is to make it so people don't want to bother. The way to do this is by 1) using an effective security/encryption mechanism to make it very difficult to hack, and 2) pricing the monthly service low enough that no one wants to waste their time hacking it, or waste their money paying for someone else's hack. Sure, it's not going to prevent every single person from getting a signal for free, but those people wouldn't have paid anyway.

For instance, right now I don't pay for any type of TV service, since I don't watch it much and don't feel the price is worth it for me. I also don't see much value in the hacked DirecTV cards which cost hundreds of dollars. However, if I could pay $5-10 per month and get my favorite channels, and ONLY those channels (Sci-Fi, Discovery, TLC), I'd most likely go for it. That's money that DirecTV could be getting, but they're not.

History has shown time and time again that trying to keep an iron grip on your intellectual property so that no unauthorized people can get to it is FAR less profitable than making it convenient for people to get and use, and pricing it attractively.
Re:That's nothing new... by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 08:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

...but the whole "quit beaming at me" argument is absolutely absurd.
It's really not, though. Transmissions you receive should be your own property to do with as you want, unless there is some compelling reason against it. America was founded on freedom, and we better have damn good reasons to make laws that take freedom away.
In the examples you gave, listening to cell phones and using passive detection methods represent significant invasion of privacy. We therefore have laws against it, to protect people's rights. Also, there's a compelling interest in national security that it's illegal to listen to military channels. The right to privacy, and national security, supercedes the right to listen to those particular transmissions.
Now, DTV telling me I can't listen to their transmissions is an infringement on my basic rights. I'm fine with your other examples, I'll give up my right to listen because there are important reasons to do so.
Now. Please, please tell me where is the compelling reason to allow legislation that makes listening to DTV broadcasts illegal? All I smell is money. Lots and lots of money, purchasing laws. Wonderful place we live in.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:52 · Score: 1, Informative

you don't like that, they'll remove the meter and the power line, and you can live without electricity

Not likely.

What they will do is tell the meter to no longer deliver power to you. Removing the meter and power line is likely to be: A) too expensive, B) illegal (since in most locales in the US a building without power is not qualified as liveable - turning it off is one thing, removing the ability to deliver is another).

Actually, they do remove the meter. They don't, however, remove the line. Ever wonder why there's a little, plastic one-time-use lock on that box? It's because electric meters are removable, and if that lock wasn't there, you could just swap an old meter in place of the one they read, swapping it back out when the meter reader comes around.

Now most meters are equipped with power line modems that report back to the mother ship once a month. Swapping a meter is likely to raise some eyebrows(and litigation) in this day and age.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:56 · Score: 0

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/vanburen.h tm
Re:That's nothing new... by letxa2000 · 2003-02-14 09:17 · Score: 1

Now if you go turn that meter on, are you just "using the emissions already on your property" or are you illegally using service?
Turning on your electricity (or stealing it directly by bypassing "the box") isn't using the emissions already on your property. It's not the emissions from the electricty that are useful, it's the electricity itself. And tapping into and making use of the force being pushed down a cable has a direct cost to the provider and also means they have less product available to supply to other paying customers.
If you can somehow make use of the emissions from a dead-end electrical connection without even touching the box or property belonging to the electric company, I'd support your right to do so.
The same holds true for most utilities such as water and gas, where in most residential neighborhoods the tap is controlled by a valve on your property. Doesn't mean you get to jack around with it though
Heck, look at your freaking mailbox -- it's paid for by you, installed by you (or by a contractor), and on your land. Destroy it, or contents within, and it's a federal violation. You don't own it.
Yes you do. And you may destroy your own mailbox or its contents. You just can't destroy others' mailbox or contents. Which is true of any property owned by others--just in the case of mailboxes it is a federal crime.
Doing so to cellular telephones is illegal, as are military channels.
Both are silly laws. You shouldn't say anything over a cell or cordless phone that you don't want heard. And the military better be using some friggin' powerful encryption because if a private citizen can decode and listen to it then you better believe foreign governments with cooler toys than I have are doing the same thing and will put the knowledge to much more destructive use.
The Supreme Court ruled against police using passive detection methods such as heat radiation without a search warrant. By your logic, they should have been able to - since if you didn't want them to use such a method you should've prevented the heat from irradiating out from your walls.
On one hand, someone doing something that they don't want known should make an effort to conceal that activity. On the other hand, the government is held to a different standard when doing something that is potentially illegal search and seizure.
but the whole "quit beaming at me" argument is absolutely absurd.
No it's not. They (satellite TV) chose what they thought to be the cheapest delivery method considering the benefits (no need to wire everybody) and the costs (signal sent to everyone). They decided the benefits were worth it. Now they want government or law enforcement help to eliminate their cost? Sorry, it shouldn't be the function of government or law enforcement to reduce the costs of doing business using a flawed delivery mechanism.
Do I think these people are guilty? Sure, they appear to have been making big money by selling devices that only serve an illegal purpose. Do I think the users of these devices or home-grown hackers that intercept and use satellite TV signals without paying for them are guilty of anything? No...
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 09:28 · Score: 0

If someone wants to send signals into the public
airspace, it should be public domain. They should
make best efforts to encrypt these, but if someone
can bypass the encryption, why should they be
punished? It's wrong to go down to your cable box
and tap in, it's not your equipment to touch, not
your property... but when you simply recieve data,
and modify what was in the air to begin with, I
think it's fair play.
Re:That's nothing new... by ralphus · 2003-02-14 10:02 · Score: 1

Why would I care if police can see my heat signature?
If you are a weed grower you certainly do. This is what the particular case was about. Police were using infrared to detect excess heat put off by the lights and equipment used in weed grow operations. They were basically getting inside houses and arresting people on the basis of what they found w/o a warrant. Whatever your stance on 'the war on drugs', wouldn't you agree that due process is important?

--
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
Re:That's nothing new... by Grishnakh · 2003-02-14 10:55 · Score: 1

I'm against the "war on drugs", but I have a hard time seeing why excess heat from growing lights could be considered adequate evidence for a search warrant. They could be growing anything in there; maybe they have a home nursery making roses or something. Why don't they go harass everyone who has a greenhouse? I think whatever judge they went to for a warrant using this should have immediately tossed it out, and if they didn't should be disbarred.
Re:That's nothing new... by mpe · 2003-02-14 11:05 · Score: 1

The part of this that bothers me is that the folks doing this profited from it.

People who make and sell televison recievers generally intend to make a profit. Even if they have no connection with TV broadcasters.

The end result of allowing this to stand is a reduced incentive to provide content. For example, if I put up a satellite and anyone else can legally decrypt the info and sell it for less while I try to recoup my investment in the satellite, why would I send the satellite up there?

Business does not come with a guarentee to make money, even to cover your overheads. Even if a specific business model has turned a profit for years it may not do so in future.
Effectivly what is going on here is broadcast television. Which can be sucessfully funded either. By selling airtime for advertisments, funded by the state from general taxation, funded by money the state collects from anyone with receiving hardware (whereever it came from including self manufacture) or by requesting donations.
Re:That's nothing new... by mpe · 2003-02-14 11:12 · Score: 1

The "you beamed your signals at me" argument is so invalid it hurts. Unless DirecTV is purposely directing its signals at your house, you have no legal standing to believe that DirecTV somehow wants you to use those signals.

The thing is that DirecTV are operating as a television broadcaster whilst attempting to use business model which makes more sense applied to some kind of circuit switched technology.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 12:07 · Score: 0

They chose a public medium and started sending signals inside my house without my knowledge or consent. They're mine now, dammit.
No they're not. You don't have any right to use a service that you have not paid for, or otherwise secured permission to use.
Different argument, now we're talking about government invasion of privacy. Invalid.
Nope. Same principle applies...
You: If DirecTV didn't want me to steal their signal, they shouldn't have beamed it at me!
Police: If AgentTim3 didn't want me to find out he had a meth lab in his basement without obtaining a search warrant, he shouldn't have allowed the heat from his lab to irradiate outside at me!
Simply because something enters your property, be it ground or air, does not mean you have the right to utilize said thing. If you think otherwise, please provide current law which states your position.
For your sake, I hope you don't ever use a cell phone. After all, once your signal encroaches on my property, I'm gonna listen in damnit, and there's nothing you can do.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 12:15 · Score: 0

Now, DTV telling me I can't listen to their transmissions is an infringement on my basic rights.

I didn't know the Founding Fathers wanted people like you to pirate satellite TV.
Re:That's nothing new... by SN74S181 · 2003-02-14 12:27 · Score: 1

To be fair, they probably would harass everyone who has a greenhouse that's completely enclosed in a lightproof building with artificial lights. Why would anybody growing roses do it in a room with totally opaque walls using electric light? Now, if they discriminated by only harassing people with that particular heat signature who also had Grateful Dead bumper stickers, that might be considered unfair and discriminatory.
Re:That's nothing new... by geekee · 2003-02-14 12:54 · Score: 1

Your arguement is flawed in that it completely ignores copyright law. Copyright is granted to the author automatically. He shouldn't need to take any technical steps to protect it. In this case, that means you don't have the right to watch the feed without paying for it, even if no encryption scheme is present.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:That's nothing new... by bombarde · 2003-02-14 13:03 · Score: 1

The original work was the Communications Act of 1934. It was essentially replaced by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Re:That's nothing new... by Grishnakh · 2003-02-14 13:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your arguement is flawed in that it completely ignores copyright law. Copyright is granted to the author automatically. He shouldn't need to take any technical steps to protect it. In this case, that means you don't have the right to watch the feed without paying for it, even if no encryption scheme is present.

You argument is completely invalid. Copyright gives the author the right to limit the copying of his content. This means that if I create a television program, I have the right to allow certain companies to distribute it, and others not to.

If, however, I choose to distribute my work, I cannot force people not to listen or watch. This is much like standing in the town square and reading my poetry aloud, but then claiming that anyone who listens must pay a fee, or else must plug their ears.

If they broadcast their copywritten work, I have the right to watch it as long as I'm not trespassing on their property. If they want to exact a fee, then they must establish a system which protects their content, such as the encryption system currently used by DirecTV, in order to coerce people into paying instead of attempting to decrypt it themselves. Unfortunately, because of the DMCA, even though it is fully legal to receive the DirecTV transmission and record it to disc, it is illegal to decrypt it.

What you're advocating is eliminating the encryption altogether; the only way of then enforcing your claim that only payers should be able to watch the signal is to create a police state where the cops fly over neighborhoods looking for unauthorized satellite dishes. It is not up to the government to enforce someone's flawed business model.
Re:That's nothing new... by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 13:56 · Score: 1

No they're not. You don't have any right to use a service that you have not paid for, or otherwise secured permission to use.
Our country was founded on the idea that we're FREE. Freedom means I can do whatever I want when it's not infringing on other people's freedom. Me sitting in my house with a bunch of circuit boards I threw together watching satellite TV that is conveniently being beamed to me does NOT infringe upon anyone else whatsover. You, sir, do not have the right to take the freedom to do that away from me.
Police: If AgentTim3 didn't want me to find out he had a meth lab in his basement without obtaining a search warrant, he shouldn't have allowed the heat from his lab to irradiate outside at me!
See my other post on this.
For your sake, I hope you don't ever use a cell phone. After all, once your signal encroaches on my property, I'm gonna listen in damnit, and there's nothing you can do.
Am I supposed to cry now? Go for it, bud. The NSA already does anyhow. You're right, there's nothing I can do. Have fun.
Re:That's nothing new... by Thing+1 · 2003-02-14 15:19 · Score: 1

Mod parent up, excellent example of shortsightedness .

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:That's nothing new... by really? · 2003-02-14 15:27 · Score: 1

If you can somehow make use of the emissions from a dead-end electrical connection without even touching the box or property belonging to the electric company, I'd support your right to do so.

I think you might be wrong. I am too lazy to look it up, but, I am quite sure that the courts have rulled against this. Some guy was "sucking" power from the powerlines strung over his property(farm???). Power company noticed, sued and won.

--

"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
Re:That's nothing new... by 1029 · 2003-02-14 15:59 · Score: 1

...The Supreme Court ruled against police using passive detection methods such as heat radiation without a search warrant. By your logic, they should have been able to - since if you didn't want them to use such a method you should've prevented the heat from irradiating out from your walls.

Lets compare apples to apples, m'kay? They can't use passive detection because you are IN YOUR OWN HOME. If you want to make this comparison it would go more like: You can't expect to walk into a police station and demand that nobody look at you and perhaps recognize you as a wanted criminal. See how that much more closely follows the rational that you can't beam a signal into somebody's home and demand that nobody listen to that signal?

See the difference? If these people were cracking signals by breaking into the actual satilite, then it should be illegal. As it is they are using something that was sent TO THEIR PROPERTY. Not only that, but your body heat going through walls is something you would have to activly try to STOP. Whereas the satellite people had to actively try to START sending signals, not the other way around. It is up to them to not send those signals places they don't want them to be used.

I can see the arguments both ways, and I don't like the DMCA in the slightest (and suspect that the people involved in this case could have been prosecuted under other laws), but the whole "quit beaming at me" argument is absolutely absurd.

"Quit beaming at me" isn't absurd at all. As an above poster put it, if someone throws a brick through your window and you pick it up, you sure as hell shouldn't be charged with stealing that brick, no matter who it eminated from.

Still don't buy the argument? Then perhaps I'll move in nextdoor to you, beam my own radio signal all around the block, and if I ever find out you tuned into my private subscriber radio station I'll have yer ass in the slammer.

--
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 17:27 · Score: 0

Me sitting in my house with a bunch of circuit boards I threw together watching satellite TV that is conveniently being beamed to me does NOT infringe upon anyone else whatsover. You, sir, do not have the right to take the freedom to do that away from me.
Oh yes I do. This isn't a libertarian country Timmy boy, and as long as we have the money, we'll go after satellite pirates just like you.
Don't like it? Move. Otherwise, we'll be watching you. :)
-- Anonymous DirecTV Employee
Re:That's nothing new... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2003-02-14 19:46 · Score: 1

Actually, I would argue that that first three shouldn't be illegal either.

1) National Security Info - again, if you can't keep it secret, that's not my problem...Jail the idiot who let the info slip (unless of course I stole it fair and square like some James Bond guy.)

2) Fraudulent information - well, if I'm paying money for it, yes, that's coercion, but if you're just broadcasting it like the three news networks and CNN do every day, well...it's up to me to not get taken in...In ordinary commerce, spreading the word that the product is not as advertised usually clears that problem up.

3) Insider Information - As one of the guys on Animal House told Flounder, "Hey! You screwed up! You trusted us!" - again, that's not my problem. If a company screws up, why should it be the law's problem? Government should not exist (at all, but that's another rant) to protect somebody's business model or business practices from their own incompetence. That simple.

If I run a satellite and my encryption is so bad that some people get free service, who cares? If they start selling the hacked cards to thousands of my customers, I care - so I better make sure my encryption is good (or change it constantly, or whatever). Calling the cops just means I can't do my job and I prefer to use someone else's gun to make my point.

Besides, what evidence is there that this sort of piracy has any significant economic effect on the viability of satellite television? I'm not talking about hypothetical lost revenue, I'm talking about are the companies profitable or not despite the piracy? If they are, they have no beef that can't be resolved by doing their job competently.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:That's nothing new... by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 19:51 · Score: 1

Hehe. Nice.
You know, the scary thing is I'll bet you anything some DTV maggots are already tracing down any track of AgentTim3 they can find on the web, to see if I've been buying up smart card writers or any such things. I mean, I've been arguing against them all day long, so certainly I must be pirating their transmissions too.
One thing I don't see posted here is any mention of the tactics DTV uses in tracking down people that they "think" "might" have bought equipment that could be used to circumvent blah blah blah...but I'm sure they're not doing anything illegal or immoral. They're rich and so I trust them. :)
Re:That's nothing new... by letxa2000 · 2003-02-14 20:06 · Score: 1

Me: If you can somehow make use of the emissions from a dead-end electrical connection without even touching the box or property belonging to the electric company, I'd support your right to do so.
You: I think you might be wrong. I am too lazy to look it up, but, I am quite sure that the courts have rulled against this. Some guy was "sucking" power from the powerlines strung over his property(farm???). Power company noticed, sued and won.
Re-read my post, please. I said if you could somehow make use of the emissions from a dead-end electrical connection WITHOUT EVEN TOUCHING THE BOX OR PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE ELECTRIC COMPANY, I'd support your right to do so. Two dollars says the person you are talking about tapped into the electric company power lines which is not what I was saying I'd support your right to do.
The EMISSIONS of the electric company produces the hum you hear on a portable radio if you get too close to power lines. If you bring a portable radio close to power lines and hear the hum, I support your right to do that without paying for it. If you actually TAP INTO the electric company's infrastructure and steal power, that's something else and of course you're going to get busted for it.
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-15 10:49 · Score: 0

Fear not, satellite pirate. We have our evidence... And no, when the FBI comes onto your property, you can't claim them as yours. :)

-- Anonymous DirecTV Employee
Re:That's nothing new... by ralphus · 2003-02-16 16:01 · Score: 1

I would really say, if it were harassing or not, could only accurately be judged by one who was a peer of the person in the community being tried. :)

--
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-18 03:14 · Score: 0

Federal Communications Act of 1936, it states that people can receive any radio signal they wish.
Except many new laws have been passed since then. There are dozens of things you can no longer legally intercept on your own property. Cell phone calls are an example.
It seems to me that the DMCA was passed after 1936 as well.
Re:That's nothing new... by really? · 2003-02-19 02:51 · Score: 1

Actually, I do mean he did it WITHOUT attaching to the wires in any way shape or form.

Still too lazy to look it up though.

--

"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley

Two important point - info distro/action by numbski · 2003-02-14 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. Should it be illegal to tell someone how to do something?

NO

2. Should it be illegal to actually do said 'thing'.

Yes, so long as said thing violates what the citizens want to be wrong.

In the end, I don't want to be breaking the law by simply knowing something, and sharing that knowledge. That's the thing the DMCA does that scares me.

--

Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

Re:Two important point - info distro/action by Azureflare · 2003-02-14 05:50 · Score: 1

A very good point! This would make bug reports that could be used to exploit a system illegal under the DMCA!
Imagine if we had no information about what bugs there were in Microsoft's operating system...Things would never get fixed.
Note: I still think VBscript needs to be "fixed" i.e. removed from the entire operating system =P
Re:Two important point - info distro/action by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:50 · Score: 0

In the end, I don't want to be breaking the law by simply knowing something, and sharing that knowledge. That's the thing the DMCA does that scares me

I agree, but each of the defendants actually was involved in the distribution of hardware devices for circumventing protection devices, not just telling people how to do it.
Re:Two important point - info distro/action by brulman · 2003-02-14 06:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm no lawyer, and I sure may be wrong, but if I were to tell someone how to subvert an alarm system in order to break into a bank, and they broke into the bank, got caught, and named me as providing the information needed to commit the crime, wouldn't the cops be able to come after me?

On a side note, a good friend of mine has been caugh up in this issue. A few years ago he bought a smart card writer, then cancelled his satellite TV. 2 or 3 months ago the satellite company apparently got a warrant to search the records of the company selling the writers, tracked down my buddy and sent him a nasty note declaring that either he paid them $7000 or they'd see him in court. The interesting thing is that they really don't have the goods on him. He bought a legal smart card writer, and he cancelled his satellite service. Totally circumstantial it seems to me. But he might pay up regardless, because he is scared the downside of going to court could end up costing a lot more than 7 grand.

--
"the best safety of the frontier...will be secured by total annihilation of the few remaining indians" L Frank Baum 1890
Re:Two important point - info distro/action by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:23 · Score: 0

What if your lawyer or doctor told someone how to blackmail you. Should that be illegal?
Re:Two important point - info distro/action by aminorex · 2003-02-14 06:49 · Score: 1

> 2. Should it be illegal to actually do said 'thing'.

> Yes, so long as said thing violates what the citizens want to be wrong.

You don't seriously believe that anybody cares if I decrypt
DBS signals except for DirectTV, do you?

"Citizens" aren't involved in this. This is not an issue of
democracy. It is an issue of corruption.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Two important point - info distro/action by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:55 · Score: 0

I'm no lawyer, and I sure may be wrong, but if I were to tell someone how to subvert an alarm system in order to break into a bank, and they broke into the bank, got caught, and named me as providing the information needed to commit the crime, wouldn't the cops be able to come after me?

Let's say you wrote a book about it. Someone checked said book out at the library. Should you then be named? Should the library administrators?
Re:Two important point - info distro/action by flight666 · 2003-02-14 07:56 · Score: 1

Yes, so long as said thing violates what the citizens want to be wrong.

Yes, but in this case the only people who want said thing to be illegal are large, monied corporations.
Re:Two important point - info distro/action by njchick · 2003-02-14 09:05 · Score: 1

No, it shouldn't. However, the doctor or the lawyer should be punished by their colleagues for their immoral behavior. The judiciary system has no business enforcing professional morale.
Re:Two important point - info distro/action by mpe · 2003-02-14 10:25 · Score: 1

1. Should it be illegal to tell someone how to do something?

Not when the law in question is passed by the US Congress, since the US Congress is explicitally denyed the ability to pass such a law.

Different Opinions by Oculus+Habent · 2003-02-14 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

While I don't think it's a terrible thing to create software and hardware to illegally use satellite TV, I do think that it should be against the law to actually use them.

It's a good thing that we don't have a DMCA-style piece of legislation for weapons, or any person who has PVC pipes, potatos and hairspray in their house could be brought up on charges.

If we assume people are criminals because they have the tools to commit a crime, everyone with hands should be locked up to provent potential fist-fights. Every person over 21 should be held for potential public drunkeness. Every eighteen-year-old in the US should be arrested for the possibilty of providing cigarettes to minors. And every car owner should be thrown in jail for possible vehicular manslaughter.

Not that I'm approving of breaking the law. But the DMCA is the same mentality as suing McDonald's for dropping coffee in your lap. It's saying that you aren't capable of not doing these things without intervention; hat anyone would drop coffee in their lap if there was no label; that anyone would steal satellite services if they knew how; that anyone with a gun will surely commit murder.

If we have become so weak as a people to no longer be able to stop ourselves from any activities, then we need more legislation than the DMCA. But, as long as we are capable of rational thought, we should be held accountable for our actions, not our thoughts.

--
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit

Re:Different Opinions by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2003-02-14 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

But the DMCA is the same mentality as suing McDonald's for dropping coffee in your lap.

You had me until that one. I'm all for suing McDonalds because they serve 190+ degree coffee that melts the plastic lid and explodes all over your lap, causing third degree burns on your thighs and genitals. Especially when they had already settled this exact same situation over 700 times for about $20,000 each.

The DMCA is a bit different, to say the least. It's more like declaring it a felony to install aftermarket parts on your car.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Different Opinions by Telastyn · 2003-02-14 05:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

But where's the crime?

DirectTV broadcast their signals to everyone. Who are they to demand how their signal is used?

To criminalize the act of decrypting satellite TV is the same as criminalizing the act of translating spanish radio into english. The radio station cannot demand that only people that understand spanish listen to it. It's just taking information that's being broadcast to everyone and translating it into a different form.
Re:Different Opinions by deblau · 2003-02-14 06:06 · Score: 1

If we have become so weak as a people to no longer be able to stop ourselves from any activities, then we need more legislation than the DMCA.
Legislation won't stop determined (or unwitting) crooks. It's just paper, after all. If we have become as irresponsible as you suggest, we need martial law and troops on every street corner.

--
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Re:Different Opinions by Moloch666 · 2003-02-14 06:08 · Score: 1

Forgive me if this was meant as funny. Did McDonalds really serve such hot coffee? Did buy custom coffee makers that serve coffee extra hot? My Mr Coffee maker at home serves it pretty damn hot, but I don't think it could melt a plastic lid, but if I spilled it on myself I would assume it would cause some bodily damage. Now McD's is probably using Bunn coffee makers, higher end industrial grade, I don't think they serve their coffee EXTRA hot. Although, there could be a setting on the Coffee maker (luke warm, hot, capable of spontaneous explosion).

--
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
Re:Different Opinions by np_bernstein · 2003-02-14 06:09 · Score: 1

It's a good thing that we don't have a DMCA-style piece of legislation for weapons, or any person who has PVC pipes, potatos and hairspray in their house could be brought up on charges.

I think that the difference, or at least the argued difference, would be that PVC pipes, potatoes, and hairspray all have other primary uses. I think that if the software created to (hack|crack) the satellites was created as software that added, say, the ability to store MP3's on the reciever, or add subtitles etc., then it would be a lot harder to prosecute this case. If the software has one, and only one purpose, I can see their argument.

--
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
Re:Different Opinions by Erasmus+Darwin · 2003-02-14 06:14 · Score: 1

"Did McDonalds really serve such hot coffee?"
Some facts about the McDonald's case.
According to that page, the corporate specified temperature for McDonald's coffee at the time of the incident was between 180 and 190 degrees. I believe the home-brewed coffee is generally around 140 degrees.
Re:Different Opinions by tommck · 2003-02-14 06:15 · Score: 1

Well, that does violate the "redistribution/rebroadcast of this content in any form...." clause, doesn't it?
T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Different Opinions by Moloch666 · 2003-02-14 06:17 · Score: 1

So instead they should broadcast directly to each individual subscriber. That means that they would probably would need a huge network of satellites that would be capable of transmitting potentialy every house all over the world. I mean that's not fair, they should be able to broadcast an encrypted signal that people must pay to have unencrypted. There is obviously a need for satellite TV and there is really only one way of going about it. Unless you lay cable all over the place and had people pay access to that cable. Oh yea, that's called Cable TV.

--
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
Re:Different Opinions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:21 · Score: 0

But the DMCA is the same mentality as suing McDonald's for dropping coffee in your lap.
For the ten billionth time, the lady did not sue because the coffee was merely hot. She sued because the coffee was over 160 degrees! If she had tried drinking it, she would have had second-degree burns in her mouth and throat. She did not sue for millions of dollars. She sued to recover her medical expenses, of a few thousand dollars. The jury decided McDonalds should pay one day worth of coffee sales in punitive damages.
The media, which collects huge sums in advertising revenue from McDonalds, has really distorted this case.
Re:Different Opinions by Telastyn · 2003-02-14 06:27 · Score: 1

What if you're not redistributing it? I don't speak spanish. If I write down the spanish, look it up and translate it, and then burn the paper, it's not redistributed (except in my head).

If I take an encrypted satelite feed (that I don't understand) and unencrypt it to something I can understand and then erase the bits, it's not redistributed (except on my TV and in my head).
Re:Different Opinions by sedmonds · 2003-02-14 06:57 · Score: 1

I often question if 'stealing' satellite signals really should be illegal. Those signals are there for the taking and the strength of the signal varies in no measurable way if more dishes recieve it..

Satellite companies make no effort at all to prevent their signals from being available to non-subscribers. The entire model is based on the fact that the signal IS available to everyone in a particular geographic region.

If I am able to decrypt these signals with a device of my own design, I should be able to do so. If I can convince my neighbor that my device is worth 3 easy payments of $49.95, that too should be well within my rights.

I don't see my local water company complaining about people stealing rainwater or water upstream from their intake. I've yet to see GE up in arms about anyone stealing the light from their lightbulbs to grow pot in the basement.

Monsanto tried to complain about people 'stealing' their precious crop secrets when nearby crops showed the same genetic traits. It was determined that Monsanto had no recourse. Why? Because their 'secret' product wasn't prevented from spreading to nearby crops. Satellite signals are also not prevented from spreading to non-subscribing dishes.

*shrug* I'm willing to accept a lot more than some of the tin-foil hat crowd on /., but until these satellite services keep their shit off my roof I have no sympathy for them. Its hardly my fault their model is distributed for anyone to use.
Re:Different Opinions by Adrenochrome · 2003-02-14 07:09 · Score: 1

I believe it was the Satellite Home Viewers Act that originally made decrypting a satellite broadcast illegal. This was back in the "Big Dish" days, BTW, when the video was analog (just inverted and sync-supressed) and the audio was digitally encrypted. The DCMA later extended this protection to _any_ digital content. Yes, never mind that anyone with suitable off-the-shelf hardware can receive the data stream, and never mind that with sufficient cleverness the data-stream can be reverse engineered and decrypted. It's illegal because the satellite and cable companies were successful in lobbying Congress. IMO, there is little difference between Skylarov and these guys. Both were decrypting digital content, both had a profit motive. Both were indicted under a flawed law. However Skylarov supposedly followed all the "proper" reverse-engineering protocols. These guys hacked around with access cards until they found a way to fool it into returning the correct decryption key.
Re:Different Opinions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:51 · Score: 0

McDonalds coffee is a bad example of a frivious lawsuit - the receiver only asked for the cost of their skin grafts ($28,000).
Re:Different Opinions by Sneftel · 2003-02-14 08:02 · Score: 1

Did McDonalds really serve such hot coffee? Did buy custom coffee makers that serve coffee extra hot?

Yes, as a matter of fact they did. (Keep in mind that most of McDonalds equipment is custom.) They intentionally served coffee extremely hot, so that customers taking a cup of it away with them wouldn't be left with lukewarm coffee later on.

--
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Re:Different Opinions by Moloch666 · 2003-02-14 08:22 · Score: 1

Oh...

I usually let the coffee I make sit out so it will cool down. Stupid McD's.

--
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
Re:Different Opinions by tommck · 2003-02-14 08:32 · Score: 1

I don't believe that this is what he intended to say when he talked about translating it. But, even so, what is "transmission" but a way to take some information from one place to another. So, if you carry that piece of paper anywhere, maybe you're still rebroadcasting... Heck... you are rebroadcasting it if you write down the translation in English... the medium? Your pen....

T
Maybe I should have been a lawyer... :-)

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Different Opinions by Telastyn · 2003-02-14 08:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

So running the light from the tv to your eyes is rebroadcasting if you want to go that far with it...
Re:Different Opinions by MikeVx · 2003-02-14 09:12 · Score: 1

Off-topic, but I'm sick of seeing this Darwin contender defended.

The jury decided McDonalds should pay one day worth of coffee sales in punitive damages.

And thus is stupidity rewarded.

Hot coffee is not hard to deal with. Every morning on the way to work, I stop at a 7-Eleven. I see people who consider the coffee too hot. They buy it anway. The solution? They grab a few chips of ice from the pop section.

Assuming it is freshly prepared, hot food should be capable of damaging burns when served. If I'm not in danger of a burn, I question if it has been properly cooked. If I can't wait for it to cool, I cut it up to increase the surface area. I blow on it. I deal with the heat.

--
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Re:Different Opinions by tommck · 2003-02-14 09:15 · Score: 1

Yep! Theif!! You need to put your TV outside of your required sensory-deprivation chamber.... :-)

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Different Opinions by shylock0 · 2003-02-14 11:34 · Score: 1

Interesting analogy. If I were to take a radio station at random, let's say one that broadcasts Howard Stern. And then I found a translator, and I had the translator rebroadcast on another frequency, Howard Stern's show, without his permission. Well, that would most certainly be illegal. His show is copyrighted, and you are creating a translation (derivitive work) without his permission.
I think that the relevant portion of copyright law (and I'll repost this elsewhere, most likely) have to do with derivitive works. An encrypted digital signal is a copyrighted set of 0s and 1s. The decryption of that signal is a derivitive work. Hence illegal to create without permission of the owner of the original copyright.

--
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Re:Different Opinions by Telastyn · 2003-02-14 11:39 · Score: 1

Right, but what if it's not rebroadcast. What if english isn't your native language, and you simply translate it into something you can comprehend?
Re:Different Opinions by geekee · 2003-02-14 13:18 · Score: 1

"While I don't think it's a terrible thing to create software and hardware to illegally use satellite TV..."

It is if you then sell a companion card and offer the software as a package to allow someone to illegally access dircttv.

It's a good thing that we don't have a DMCA-style piece of legislation for weapons, or any person who has PVC pipes, potatos and hairspray in their house could be brought up on charges.

You can be arrested for possessing a bomb, even if you never use it. The reason your analogies fail is that some things have no legitimate purpose, such as software to crack dircttv.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Different Opinions by Cl1mh4224rd · 2003-02-15 04:24 · Score: 1

Your analogy is flawed. Spanish is a language; a method of communication. Encryption is not. At best, encryption is a method of protecting data.

Translating from Spanish to English isn't illegal, because Spanish wasn't "developed" to protect the information that is being communicated.

--
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Re:Different Opinions by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-15 14:29 · Score: 0

You have never heard two high school girls speaking pig latin or that damn gnip gnop language.
Re:Different Opinions by Oculus+Habent · 2003-02-17 06:40 · Score: 1

Signals are prevented from "spreading" - by encryption. Just as water pipes are metered and pulling water from before the meter is illegal, watching satellite "before the meter" is illegal. Should it be? That's not the question, as it already is.

If Monstano had managed to develop some DNA encryption scheme so only their plants could use their new crop design, and someone created an enzyme capable of using it, they would have been in violation.

Personally making a decoder probably shouldn't be illegal - it becomes a question of time and effort; just as I could make a toaster, but the time involved isn't worth it. As for selling it, I would disagree with you. It's not the signal that you pay for, it's the decryption - which whether we like it or not, it currently protected.

--
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit

Oh, and.... by numbski · 2003-02-14 05:28 · Score: 1

of course,

In Soviet Russia, the DMCA violates you! ....

eeeeyuuuu!

--

Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

Re:Oh, and.... by JahToasted · 2003-02-14 05:54 · Score: 0, Flamebait

In Soviet Russia, the DMCA violates you! ....

Same could be said about Capitalist America...
Re:Oh, and.... by sepluv · 2003-02-14 06:24 · Score: 1

No you are confused. Soviet Russia no longer exists. The truth is that:
In the Soviet USA, the DMCA violates YOU and YOUR constitutional rights (hey what happened to them and why do the undemocratic US government try their best to break them all the time) unless of course the more democratic non-Soviet Russia come to your rescue.

--
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]

Intention irrelevant.. by xchino · 2003-02-14 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Whether or not the intentions of the authors were good or not makes no difference. It should ALWAYS be up to the end user to exercise good judgment in usage of information. In Kenpo, I was taught how to break bones and even kill people. I have yet to break anyone's bones, other than my own, nor have I killed anyone. Should I be punished for knowing these things? Should my teacher be punished for teaching me? No. If I chose to use my knowledge unfairly, should my teacher be punished for my irresponsibility?

The DMCA is the modern day non-racial equivalent of the Jim Crow laws. If you can keep "them" uneducated you can keep "them" under control.

--
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.

Re:Intention irrelevant.. by kawika · 2003-02-14 06:33 · Score: 1

Huh? Intention isn't relevant? In what country do laws not take intentions into effect? If I run over someone who darts out into the road and kill them, is it the same as if I run over my cheating spouse, back up, and hit 'em again for good measure?

Forget the DMCA and just think of the right or wrong of this. The landmark Supreme Court decision of the 1980s that allowed VCRs to survive said their were significant non-infringing uses of the technology. Where are the significant non-infringing uses of this product?
Re:Intention irrelevant.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:58 · Score: 0

...if I was the parent of the 3-yr old who did so, and it seemed that you could have been paying attention better, yes. If it seems to have been unavoidable, then it's a bad accident.

What!? by 91degrees · 2003-02-14 05:29 · Score: 5, Funny

So, they send the information to my home, without my permission. It bounces around my dish, causing interference, and then they have the audacity to say that I'm not allowed to apply mathematical operations on this noise!?

If they don't want me to pirate their signal, why did they send it to me?

Re:What!? by callipygian-showsyst · 2003-02-14 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

About 20 years ago, it was in fact legal to do anything you want with radio waves that passed near you. There was absolutely no ban on radio receivers, or any restrictions on monitoring any frequency. (There were laws against using what you heard--for example police comminications--to commit a crime.)
Then they passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that, for the first time (except during a few years during WW II) made it illegal for Americans to even tune radio receivers to certain frequencies. Manufacturers who made radio scanners, for example, were forced to block out the frequencies used by cell phones.
Back in those days, cell phones were analog and it was very easy to listen in. Now that they're all digital, do you think the government lifted the "frequency block" on radio receivers? Of course not!

--
Best Buy can have you arrested
Re:What!? by swb · 2003-02-14 05:57 · Score: 0, Troll

If they don't want me to pirate their signal, why did they send it to me?

Because they want to catch you doing it so they can hear you repeat your sad, self-justifying argument with your faced pressed into a pillow as some 800 pound gorilla enjoys your smooth, tight anus in a Federal prison someplace.
Re:What!? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2003-02-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Um ... if you've got a legitimate counterargument, or even a reason why the original poster's argument is "sad [and] self-justifying," please give it. Don't try to show us how macho you are by going to the least common denominator of any discussion about criminal behavior. I swear, "getting raped in prison" deserves its own corollary to Godwin's Law.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:What!? by swb · 2003-02-14 07:18 · Score: 0, Troll

It's sad because its self-justifying. If you're not willing to see that, at least acknowledge that the guy is stealing signals/service/etc as most people would define it.

We as a society have collectively decided its OK for parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to be used to conduct business. Satellite TV is one of those businesses. To protect their product, they encrypt it to prevent eavesdropping. If you pay them, they will sell you a decryption key which will enable you to watch it.

All of those things are well known and generally accepted, both in practice and in law. If you decide that they're "bouncing around noise in your dish" you're somehow entitled to take, you're either a sociopath or morally incompetant.

It's about as idiotic and nonsensical as deciding that because a store has put items on a table on the sidewalk that you should be able to take them because they're not in the store.

I'm just tired of this attitude, and the people who embrace it should know that it probably sounds really good to yourself, but to everyone else its just pathetic.
Re:What!? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2003-02-14 07:49 · Score: 1

Well, if you put it that way (minus the hyperbole -- "sociopath," etc.) I agree with you. I wonder how difficult it would have been for you to say that in the first place instead of giving a lovingly pornographic description of prison rape.

Congratulations! You've (almost) learned how to construct a coherent argument. Next, work on walking upright and using simple tools.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:What!? by 91degrees · 2003-02-14 08:01 · Score: 1

The number of people who can broadcast on a spectrum is limited. The number of people who can receive the signal is not limited. Therefore, it's unethical to prevent me from receiving it. If more people use their product, it doesn't cost them any more. They're creating artificial scarcity.

Obviously, this would scupper their business model, but before satellite television, they didn't have this business model in the first place. They are not automatically morally entitled to make money. If they don't want it, then the same spectrum can be sold to someone else who is willing to allow everyone to share.

This method has worked perfectly well for terrestrial transmissions. Why should it not work just as well for other spectra?
Re:What!? by sstamps · 2003-02-14 12:08 · Score: 1

>It's about as idiotic and nonsensical as deciding that because a store has put items on a table on the sidewalk that you should be able to take them because they're not in the store.

No, it is idiotic and nonsensical to represent an incomplete analogy as the real situation. Hence:

If a store decides to put their products in MY HOME, WITHOUT my permission, hoping to entice me to purchase them, then I have NO SYMPATHY for them if I decide to take the objects that are occupying space in my home and use them like they are mine.

It is a flawed societal model that needs to be kicked out of common circulation. That, somehow, businesses are ENTITLED to have their business models and profits ENABLED and PROTECTED by governmental decree.

We should never have allowed this with the cell phone companies, and we should have never allowed it with the satellite companies. We, collectively, should have told them "your business model is in your own hands; we're not going to criminalize people for your incompetence". Of all things, using the EM spectrum for the communication of information, encrypted or not, should be the least regulated in this regard, because you CANNOT prevent people from accessing it, because it automatically makes itself accessible by its pervasiveness.

So, no, I don't buy the "stealing" argument. You can't steal something that is already in your possession. The electrons carrying the information were already as much mine as anyone's, and if I want to perceive the information they are carrying to me PHYSICALLY, then NO ONE should have any thing to say against it. I am not saying that I should be able to "own" the information I can perceive (since that is another completely nutty concept in and of itself), but there should not be ANY reason to deprive me of right to perceive it.

Anyway, I have been a DirecTV customer in the past, and have done research on the various methods of getting the signals for free, but only out of curiosity in my security research. It really isn't worth the effort with all the drivel that they call "programming" to bother "stealing" it anyway. As such, I don't think the laws or the case have any merit, and will continue to dissent against this abuse until it goes away.

--
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Re:What!? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 12:51 · Score: 0

So if I drive down your street, can I listen in on your cell phone conversation? Oh yeah, what about that 2.4ghz phone of yours, thats sending out information too, so its my damn right to listen to it! 802.11b? It's encrypted? Oh well, it doesn't matter I suppose I'll just figure out the key and get on your network because it's reaching out to my car!

Use your damn brain, or are there too many radiowaves interferring with it?
Re:What!? by 91degrees · 2003-02-15 03:35 · Score: 1

Yep. If I expect security, I'll damn well use a cable. I'll probably rely on the cryptographic security actually, but if you want to try and break it, then I'm not going to throw a hissy fit and have you arrested.

Same thing Bush (America) is about to do to Iraq by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:29 · Score: 0, Troll

Everyone is complaining that these guys got arrested for producing devices and software that allow hacking of the Satalite networks. And that they shouldn't be arrested because they didn't do any hacking themselves. Should they be prosecuted?

Well, the US has 156,000 troops about to invade Iraq because they are building Weapons of Mass destruction. They haven't used them to to cause any destruction, but they are building them. Is there any difference?

Half a million in damages? by hibiki_r · 2003-02-14 05:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the article:

Linh Ly, 38, of Rosemead, Calif., agreed to plead guilty to violating the DMCA and distributing hardware that ultimately resulted in a loss of slightly more than $560,000 to DirecTV and Dish Network

Over half a million dollars? That's outrageous!. I suppose that DirectTV is just assuming that anybdy that bought modded equipment was going to buy every single channel and every single pay-per-view event/movie they ever offered. I'm sure that phone companies will start calculating damages from cellphne fraud by assuming that every hacked account was calling to a sex-line in Sudan 24/7. Or even better, that the account was calling to every single phone number in the world, at once 24/7.

Now that I think about it, that would be really amusing.

Re:Half a million in damages? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:32 · Score: 0

Hello,

Please tell me more about "calling to a sex-line in Sudan 24/7".

Thank you,
-- P. Bateman
Re:Half a million in damages? by Budgreen · 2003-02-14 05:40 · Score: 1

"Or even better, that the account was calling to every single phone number in the world, at once "

wasn't that done in a really bad movie 'the lawnmower man' they should clim prior art ;)

--
The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
Re:Half a million in damages? by MarvinMouse · 2003-02-14 05:45 · Score: 1

How about damages relating to recoding the system so the algorithms that the defendants released don't work anymore.

That's going to come pretty damn close to half a million.

But, then again, this could be like the stats of drug busts. "They were producing $1,000,000 of marijuana a day"... Yeah, right, if they went out and sold it all a gram at a time.

--
~ kjrose
Re:Half a million in damages? by zentigger · 2003-02-14 05:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Funny, but isn't DirecTV obligated under some sort of Security Comission regulations to report all losses to their share-holders?

I'm pretty sure that DirecTV has not reported this loss. I suppose this could lead to 1 of 2 things. Either the losses must be re-evaluated, or DirecTV executives are in breach of trust and should now all go to jail!

--
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
Re:Half a million in damages? by WoodSmoke · 2003-02-14 06:33 · Score: 1

I "think" that would be profit vs loss. As is Total Income - Total Expenses = Profit or Loss.
WoodSmoke
Re:Half a million in damages? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:27 · Score: 0

Yeah, I do this whole hacking thing, and I do get every channel, and every PPV event. DirecTV's premier package is $82/mo, but you can add more preimum channels to get over $100/mo. for your base charge.
So that's about $1,500 a year.
Plus an average of $150 for each season pass for NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA basketball... etc, which runs about $750 year.
20 Pay-Per-View channels, running at about $3 a pop, 10 shows a day/channel. So that's $600 a day, over $100,000 a year.
Oh, and the porn. DirecTV has got some good porn channels. Hardcore stuff. Those suckers cost about $8-$10 each. Easily $400 a day if you ordered them all.
So yeah, $500,000/year if you use clever accounting.
Re:Half a million in damages? by CaptainAx · 2003-02-14 07:29 · Score: 1

The valuations that are used in this case and the ones involving piracy have a problem with determining what the actual damages are. It's funny when the BSA testifies that the software companies it represents claim 11 billion a year in loss but yet can't tell the jury how that calculation is derived. My guess is in their trial, the same thing will happen. They will never be able to prove *exactly* how many people were watching their broadcasts without paying for it.
Re:Half a million in damages? by Dan+Nordquist · 2003-02-14 07:51 · Score: 1

My guess is that if you ran a regular ol' satellite hacking business out of your house, you could probably count on 10 orders a day. If you couldn't, you probably wouldn't be doing it.

We'll also assume that they caught Linh Ly after only a year of selling mods. So that's 3650 customers.

Those 3650 customers all start watching DTV... but I'll make another ridiculous concession: half of them are students and wouldn't have spent any money in the first place. The other 50% cancel their cable.

Of that half, just 1825, let's assume they don't watch any sports, PPV, whatever, and just use it to replace cable. We'll just say that they could have bought the El Cheapo $32 a month plan, but now they won't. That's $58,400 in lost revenues, every month, at the time his business is shut down. (The total loss to DirecTV is something like $350,000 for that year, but even with him in jail or paying huge fines, DirecTV still has to live without that $700,000 the years after that if nobody else steals satellite service.)

Now these are just estimates. It's reasonable to assume that more than half of people with hacked satellite systems would pay for it (or something like it) if they couldn't steal it. They wouldn't all buy the cheapest plan, either. But a business that sells any kind of volume of these tools (to people who would otherwise pay for satellite, not DSS hacking enthusiasts) has to understand that greivances of six or seven figures is not at all uncommon or even unreasonable.
Re:Half a million in damages? by mpe · 2003-02-14 10:34 · Score: 1

Over half a million dollars? That's outrageous!. I suppose that DirectTV is just assuming that anybdy that bought modded equipment was going to buy every single channel and every single pay-per-view event/movie they ever offered.

It appears commonplace to use these kind of daft metrics. They probably include people using unoffical decoders who couldn't get the official ones even if they wanted to.
Re:Half a million in damages? by sn0wcrash · 2003-02-15 01:23 · Score: 1

They love these huge numbers. They use these figures they come up with as losses. More lossess means less profits means less taxes. Less taxes paid out byt he companies means more money for the executives pocketbooks. And that is what it is all about, the rich people making sure they get richer.

china? by Budgreen · 2003-02-14 05:30 · Score: 1

am I wrong but havn't similar things happened in china? such as interrupting satelite downfeeds to get a message across.

slightly offtopic but it may tie in somewhere.

--
The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...

Re:china? by bakawally · 2003-02-14 06:15 · Score: 1

The Falun Gong cult allegedly hijacked a satelite feed for a Chinese news station to broadcast some information. However its completely unrelated.

Excuse me, by genka · 2003-02-14 05:31 · Score: 4, Funny

If sat providers don't want me to mess with their signal, they shouls cease to radiate it on my house in backyard!
This is not like I am tapping into their cable.

Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:06 · Score: 0

You sire are a retard.
Re:Excuse me, by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 06:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't understand why this is modded as funny. It's the truth.
The issue of "stealing" satellite TV is fundamentally different from that of cable TV. With cable, you can't get it in your house unless you sign a contract with a company to install it. Said contract stipulates that you won't decrypt it, so if you do so you're in breach of contract and you're wrong. Fine.
Satellite signals are broadcast into the house I own and the airspace above my property that I own, without my consent. This isn't a joke people, if I set up equipment to turn those transmissions into usable TV signals, I've done nothing wrong. If I put up a website telling people about my accomplishments, I'm now liable for 5 years imprisonment and a $500K fine? That's the same punishment as criminally negligent manslaughter.
I find it sad that so many posters on here seem to agree that this is illegal and side with the giant money-grubbing corporation. The war is already lost.
Re:Excuse me, by tchdab1 · 2003-02-14 07:01 · Score: 1

Seriosly.
I'm sure this has been covered but I have not found it: If I figure out how to unscramble the signal "irradiating my backyard" and use it myself and don't sell the info or signal to anyone, I can't see how I am liable. If I am, I'd like to know how they got that legislation through Congress. Ethically, I should be able to demand that the Sat company cease broadcasting to my house if they insist on charging me for intercepting it.
I'll accept that selling the info is illegal, but simply sharing it for free, hmmm, seems OK to me too.

Can someone explain or point me to the justification for this (besides the obvious need to protect a business plan)?

Thank you!
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:26 · Score: 0

Satellite signals are broadcast into the house I own and the airspace above my property that I own, without my consent.
I understand that there are airplanes that are flying over your personal airspace without your consent. Quick, get out those anti-aircraft guns and start firing.
Stop it with this "quit beaming your signals at me!" reasoning. It does not work. You do not have a legal right to use a transmission simply because it somehow entered your personal space. Don't believe me? Try eavesdropping on a cell phone conversation. See what happens.
But if you really think that you can do what you want with a transmission that somehow enters your personal space, that's fine. I just hope the transmissions from your cell phone conversations don't enter into my personal space... ;)
I find it sad that so many posters on here seem to agree that this is illegal and side with the giant money-grubbing corporation. The war is already lost.
What war? The war to obtain copyrighted content that you did not pay for the authorization to use?
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 09:27 · Score: 0

I understand that there are airplanes that are flying over your personal airspace without your consent.

Listen fucktard, the FAA has regulations on how low airplanes can fly because they would indeed invade my airspace. With your analogy, you are saying its perfectly OK for the fucking airplanes to land in my backyard anytime they wanted to and I couldn't do shit about it.
Re:Excuse me, by SurfTheWorld · 2003-02-14 09:44 · Score: 2, Informative

I understand that there are airplanes that are flying over your personal airspace without your consent. Quick, get out those anti-aircraft guns and start firing.

You only own the airspace up to 200 feet or something similarly low. Since aircraft typically fly at 30,000+ they are well out of range of your property.

Likewise, I think you only own 5 feet or so of your Earth. A friend of mine was in some form of construction and told me that the reason why all pipes, wires, conduit, sewage, etc is at least N feet deep is not only to avoid the dangers associated with winter and frozen pipes, but also because homeowners own land N - 1 feet below their house.

--
Do it for da shorties
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 12:11 · Score: 0

Listen fucktard, you need to close your italics tags. :)
Re:Excuse me, by evilviper · 2003-02-14 13:38 · Score: 1

I understand that there are airplanes that are flying over your personal airspace without your consent. Quick, get out those anti-aircraft guns and start firing.

You don't own the airspace very far above your property.

If they WERE flying low enough to be on your property (yikes), the same laws apply as if they were in a car, on your property. Namely, you can't kill them just because they are tresspassing... You have to be reasonably sure they are posing the risk of physical harm or death to you, in which case, it really doesn't matter very much if they are on your property or not.

On the other hand, the courts have said that any signals you recieve are yours to do with as you wish, otherwise full-size satellite dishes would have been outlawed long ago. The DMCA could well be considered illegial, as a right (already guaranteed by the courts) has now been outlawed by it. It would be as if the courts recognized your right to keep and bear arms, then the Senate decided to outlaw bullets... They just can't do that. However, as the Supreme Court has shown what a tool they can be, I somehow don't expect them to overturn the DMCA.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Excuse me, by Tryfen · 2003-02-14 21:38 · Score: 1

Satellite signals are broadcast into the house I own and the airspace above my property that I own, without my consent.

Except that you did give your consent. Your elected government or its agencies sold a specific spectrum within your airspace.

T

--
If a square is really a rhombus, why aren't all triangles purple?
Re:Excuse me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 15:18 · Score: 0

What would it take to have the DMCA reviewed by the Supreme Court?
Re:Excuse me, by evilviper · 2003-02-16 17:35 · Score: 1

Simple... a trial with charges based on the DMCA, that gets appealed by the defendant multiple times, until it gets to the supreme court.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

MOD PARENT UP! by numbski · 2003-02-14 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is precisely the point that needs to get across.

Screw their intent. I don't care WHAT they intended to do. If they hacked their satellite system and broke the law, fine.

If they simply DESCRIBE how to do so, that should not be illegal. Period.

--

Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

The DMCA people take a step forward by kahei · 2003-02-14 05:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Having tried a few times to establish the full power of the DMCA by prosecuting people almost at random, they have now realised that they will have to start with a few obvious wrongdoers in order to establish credibility and precedent.

I expect after a few of these they'll try another Sklyarov type case and win.

--
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.

Screw you, mod him up anyway. :oP by numbski · 2003-02-14 05:35 · Score: 1

Why? Because I want to draw attention to you. I'm curious...

Curious whether or not that argument would hold up in court.

That...and it's funny. :)

--

Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

USA.. USA... USA.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:36 · Score: 0

USA... ("Land of the free")... hahahaha...

Re:Same thing Bush (America) is about to do to Ira by Pxtl · 2003-02-14 05:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

There is a distinct difference - Iraq is already a violent nation that invaded a neighbor and has committed violent acts against its citizens. This is more like not permitting a convicted felon from owning weapons. Similar to how they dissallowed Mitnick from going near an internet connection after he was released.

I have no problem limiting the hardware allowed to hackers *after* they have already been proven guilty of a computer crime. Just not before.

NO! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:40 · Score: 0

Don't tell me what I can or cannot moderate, you insignificant fuck. Prepare to meet the bottom barrel of moderation. That and the parent post too...because you had to scream "MODERATE THIS UP BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO SAY!"

Hack into a transmission? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

How do you "hack" into a transmission? (Take an axe and hit it in the gearbox?)

These companies are beaming a signal right into my house! On Purpose!
If they don't want people to decode their signal, then perhaps they should refrain from beaming the signal at them. Duh!

Have you seen these anti-piracy ads?
Paraphrased: "This man is about to steal something... blah blah blah... He's stealing signals that we are beaming into his house!"

Now, where did I put my tinfoil hat?

Re:Hack into a transmission? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:43 · Score: 0

I guess that you have the right to listen in to everbody's cell phone converstations too huh? Since those signals are being dumped on you same as satellite signals
Re:Hack into a transmission? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:02 · Score: 0

no, I think cell phones should be banned outright.

Re:Same thing Bush (America) is about to do to Ira by teamhasnoi · 2003-02-14 05:42 · Score: 1

Nope. Stealing satellite TV and throwing babies out of incubators are the same thing. I think that people who tear the tags off of mattresses should get the death penalty. Or worse yet, people who drive with their blinkers on should have to watch their children killed slowly by bloodletting and/or eyepoking.

Who has the most (media-freindly term coming...) Weapons of Mass Destruction?

The US.

Is there any difference?

okay by Ty · 2003-02-14 05:43 · Score: 1

Freedom of speech and DMCA rants aside..

Why on earth should it be considered a crime to do what I want with a signal that is being blasted onto my private property without my consent?

Re:okay by slakdrgn · 2003-02-14 05:48 · Score: 1

An interesting twist would be to block the signal in your back yard, and if other peoples sat's happen to shoot thru your back yard to get the signal, tough luck for them.. I wonder what kind of reaction that would bring..
Piracy may be illegal, but I don't want to be tempted so I just block the signal. If I can't use it, I don't want it being blasted into my back yard.
What do you guys think? if anything it should post an interesting debate.
Re:okay by essell · 2003-02-14 09:05 · Score: 1

It's all about loopholes. It is not illegal to *receive* the signal on your property; it is illegal to *decrypt* it.

weak sauce.

--
i swear my userid used to be lower.

LOL, that coming from... by numbski · 2003-02-14 05:43 · Score: 1

an anonymous coward. How fitting. :P

--

Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

Digital TV sucks. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:44 · Score: 0

Mehh, the quality on DirectTV sucks anyways. I remember watching Mr. Hollands [opus] leave mpeg streak across the screen as he walked.

They compress the channels too much.

Give me analog over highly compressed digital tv any day. You can change channels faster too.

SOME information wants to be free by Thud457 · 2003-02-14 05:46 · Score: 3, Funny

I think your employer would press charges if you "gave out information" on the combination to the finance office's safe!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:SOME information wants to be free by tzanger · 2003-02-14 05:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think your employer would press charges if you "gave out information" on the combination to the finance office's safe!

Doubtful. What would the charge be? Intent to commit theft?

You could very well be fired, but that's not because of a criminal activity.
Re:SOME information wants to be free by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:42 · Score: 1, Informative

Doubtful. What would the charge be? Intent to commit theft?
No, theft. You've made a copy of information that is the property of the company (without authorization), and then given those copies to third parties, who may or may not have received money for them.
Sheesh, is this the sort of thinking that leads Slashdotters to think they can do whatever they want with a satellite box and claim they weren't stealing satellite service, when that's the only thing one can DO with a hacked satellite box?
Re:SOME information wants to be free by TarPitt · 2003-02-14 08:04 · Score: 1

If you are an employee, the safe's combination might be a trade secret.

If you are a customer of DirecTV, however (IANAL) reverse engineering their cable decoder can't be a trade secret violation.

That's the difference.

--
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Re:SOME information wants to be free by tzanger · 2003-02-14 08:11 · Score: 1

If you are an employee, the safe's combination might be a trade secret.

That would be a very hard stretch to try and encompass a safe combination as a trade secret. Trade secrets are typically regarding the process to create something which is sold. And since it's doubtful that the combination to a safe is in any way a secret in making locks, even that particular corner case is hard to believe.
Re:SOME information wants to be free by vsavatar · 2003-02-14 10:29 · Score: 1

Actually, theft wouldn't work here. You actually have to steal something or at least attempt to steal something for theft to be charged against you. Copying has nothing to do with theft. Copyright law was created specifically for that purpose. Besides, what if you didn't copy the combination. What if you just remembered it in your head? That would be an interesting argument for the prosecutor to make. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I intend to prove that the defendant did knowingly, and willfully, remember the combination to his company's safe. Moreover, I will prove that not only did he remember something he had no business remembering, he also told it to other people so they could rob the company blind." Something tells me the first part of the argument would have the jurors chuckling a little bit. However, conspiracy charges could be filed for giving out the information, especially if a theft attempt was made, but unless one was made it would be very hard to make those charges stick. The company could easily dismiss you though, which is what they would likely do.
Re:SOME information wants to be free by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:37 · Score: 0

Breach of fiduciary duty. If you are an employee, you are an agent of the employer, and owe the employer a duty of good faith. Breach of fiduciary duty can result in civil and criminal remedies.
Re:SOME information wants to be free by TarPitt · 2003-02-27 10:56 · Score: 1

All right, you win. I should have used another example.

--
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep

Question for the lawyers out there. by JAZ · 2003-02-14 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why is it legal for me to have a cable tv descrambler and watch a cable off of a wire (which the cable company can claim ownership of) but not for me to decrypt a satalite signal from the airwaves which the statalite company cannot legimately claim ownership of?

Under current law, it seems that if someone throws a brick through my window and I pick it up, I am guilty of stealing a brick.

--

"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson

Re:Question for the lawyers out there. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:36 · Score: 0

What makes you think it's leagal to use a descrambler to watch cable without paying?
Re:Question for the lawyers out there. by stratjakt · 2003-02-14 06:40 · Score: 1

>> Why is it legal for me to have a cable tv descrambler and watch a cable off of a wire (which the cable company can claim ownership of)

IANAL, but it isnt. If someone told you it is, they're a fool.

You lease access to the wire on their (the cable companies) terms.

>> airwaves which the statalite company cannot legimately claim ownership of?

The FCC says they can claim ownership of them.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Question for the lawyers out there. by geekee · 2003-02-14 12:58 · Score: 1

You don't own the EM spectrum that is over your property, any more than you own the airspace over your property. The FCC distributes and regulate EM transmissions.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:Question for the lawyers out there. by glitchvern · 2003-02-15 04:11 · Score: 1

Why is it legal for me to have a cable tv descrambler and watch a cable off of a wire (which the cable company can claim ownership of) but not for me to decrypt a satalite signal from the airwaves which the statalite company cannot legimately claim ownership of?

It's not really, but the law is slightly vague, a violation of civil instead of criminal law, and it's never been tested in court. Cable companies long ago feared setting a precedent the "wrong" way because if the courts said you could use cable descramblers, then everyone probably would so they've never prosecuted anyone for it. This was pre-DMCA. I don't know why they don't go after people now.
In contrast satellite companies long ago had the law written that decrypting satellite signals is punishable by a fine and/or some jail time. They did this ?at/during/slightly after? the time that they first began licsensing the frequencies from the fcc. Because the law is so clear on the matter, they do not hesitate to prosecute people for violating it. Also, the satellite companies can claim legitimate "ownership" of the airwaves they use. They pay our goverment for them and not in campaign contributions either, but in real actual liscense fees that go into the goverments budget. (Although you could argue they don't pay enough. I'm not sure what current liscensing rates are.) That's why they can ask the goverment to prosecute people for "stealing" "their" signal. They pay a fee to the goverment and get something in return (and the citizens also get something out of it because they can then purchase cable/satellite tv signals, mutually advantages situation blah blah blah...). Cable companies do not pay the goverment a fee and thus haven't gotten the goverment to criminalize "stealing" cable tv. It is however still a violation of your contract with the cable company and thus a violation of civil law. Hypothetically, they could drag you into court for it and collect some stiff penalties, but they never do for fear of setting a precedent that the only thing they can do is disconnect you.
My uncle explained this all to me a long time ago when he was descrambling (stealing) cable tv. It struct me as rather screwed up at the time that it was grey area illegal with light penalties if you ever got caught stealing a signal out of a network a company owns that had been built all the way to your house through a labor intensive process and black area illegal with heavy penalties to take a signal being beamed into your house, recieve it, and perform mathematical operations on it. But when you think of it as just a strange artifact of the way law on cable and satellite signals was made, then I guess it makes sense sort of.
Re:Question for the lawyers out there. by JAZ · 2003-02-19 05:20 · Score: 1

Just to be clear, I did not suggest that it is ok to steal cable, just that I could own my own descrambler to watch cable. as I understand it the cable company is of course allowed to filter the signal I get, but I can descrambler what ever I do get as I see fit.

The FCC says this is legal http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/nrc b4009.txt

"Cable operators may not prevent customers from using their own equipment if such equipment is technically compatible with the cable system."

--

"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson

MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:49 · Score: 0

This poster is obviously contributing nothing to the discussion at hand.

I guess I'm just an old fashioned anarchist, then. by Tri0de · 2003-02-14 05:51 · Score: 0, Redundant

IMHO- if they are transmitting the signals through my property then I have a right to do whatever I want to with them, including decrypt, record and propagate. If they don't like that then don't transmit through my property.

--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Of course they had good intentions! by Derek · 2003-02-14 05:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

My guess is that for those who haven't already plead guilty, they will have a tough time proving that they had good intentions...

I guess that statement depends on your definition of "good intentions". From my point of view, when someone uses their intellect to figure how to get access to satellite signals that are broadcast into their own back yard, that sounds like a good intention to me.

When someone shares knowlegde that they have legitimately aquired, that also sounds like a good intention to me.

When someone sells hardware built from knowledge they have legitimately aquired, that sounds like a good intention to me. (Or at least good entrepreneurship.)

Frankly, there a lot of people that could stand to use a little more time learning how to build TV's and a little less time watching them. How about we start chasing after violent criminals again or spend some resource to solve problems in our schools? My two cents worth anyway...

-Derek

Re:Of course they had good intentions! by martone66 · 2003-02-14 06:35 · Score: 1

I totally agree with you, but... here comes the cynicism... DirecTV has money. People/corporations with money influence how government works.

American society is based upon greed. In general, it is too greedy to properly fund our public schools, instead focusing on protecting the wealth of the rich.

In other draconian news... by DCowern · 2003-02-14 05:53 · Score: 2, Informative

An ELEVEN (yes, 11) year old boy was charged with a felony "hacking" charge today for accessing his teacher's computer during lunch and changing grades on a couple of his assignments. Theres's an article over at CNN. May as well get 'em while they're young...

Re:In other draconian news... by teamhasnoi · 2003-02-14 06:02 · Score: 1

That is just fucked. What, he went into Excel and changed his grade? Did the teacher have a password on the file?
Overreaction and FUD. Hacking? Sheeeeeit.
I guess it could be argued that figuring out how to get your Winmodem to work could be construed as a violation of the DMCA, since it is obvious the thing was never meant to be tampered with in the first place.
Re:In other draconian news... by Fastolfe · 2003-02-14 08:08 · Score: 1

I suspect this was a situation where they came to his parents, and his parents agreed to have him arrested to scare him. This isn't that uncommon.
Re:In other draconian news... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:51 · Score: 0

I don't think so. According to the local paper, the family has hired an attorney to defend the boy, and in a statement today the attorney criticized the school district for having the boy arrested.

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/trib_local_news/articl e/ 0,1651,TCP_1107_1745018,00.html

Likewise, the local article makes clear that he wasn't taken to the jail and immediately released to his father; he was taken to the county jail and later released. And, he was taken to the jail the same day the incident ocurred.

Doesn't say explictly, but given those facts it seems pretty clear that after catching him, the school district called the cops and had him arrested.
Re:In other draconian news... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 15:13 · Score: 0

Correct. The local news (I live in Palm Beach County) had a statement from the principle saying that their zero tolerance policy required the exact steps that they took. Zero tolerance=Zero common sense.

Re:I guess I'm just an old fashioned anarchist, th by stratjakt · 2003-02-14 05:54 · Score: 1

You own the property, not the air above it. Planes may fly over your house. Satellite transmissions do not go 'through' anything. You can block em with a sheet of newspaper.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Slippery slope (of your forehead, maybe) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:55 · Score: 0

Ok, first off, hands are useful for things other than committing crimes. So are all the other things you mention.

Except hardware made to decrypt satellite signals so as not to have to pay for it.

Try to stay within the realm of the rational. It tends to help your argument.

Creeping Europeanism by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:56 · Score: 0

I suppose soon, with digital TV, this will extend to all television broadcasts. Then we will have a situation as in Britian, where you have to pay a tax to own a TV to pay for the stations. This is what the DMCA provided for -- by saying that it's illegal to circumvent any scheme the companies set up, you are essentially giving away the Congresses' power to make laws on copyrights to the companies.

How I see it by mao+che+minh · 2003-02-14 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I forge myself a sword (a device whom's main purpose is to disable or kill a person or animal). I feel ill will towards a particular person in my community. If a lawyer or a bill can show that I may harbor the intent to kill this person, is that substantial enough to prosecute me for attempted, premeditated murder?

It is highly likely that these people were in fact developing these devices/software/whatever with the sole purpose of hacking the satelite networks, when considering how specific and tailored the devices must be. They didn't actually go through the act of committing the crime however. In this country, I always assumed that one had lack the benefit of a doubt in order to be prosecuted. There sure is a lot of doubt here.

Let's take another example: At 3 AM one evening a police officer sees three guys sitting in front a bank, all wearing black masks, 2 with rope and one with a pick axe. Should the police officer be allowed to arrest these guys, just because it appears as though they are planning on robbing the bank? I guess that's the question really, should we be allowed to arrest people just because they might be a threat.......hey wait, this is starting to sound famailar........

Re:How I see it by Big_Breaker · 2003-02-14 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is the reason why many states have laws against possessing buglary tools... because intent is so hard to prove until the crime has been committed.

Buglarly tools aren't a bad analogy for SOME of this technology.
Re:How I see it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 09:54 · Score: 0

Black Masks, Rope, and Pickaxes illegal to possess as "burglary tools"

I sure am glad I don't live on a farm.
Re:How I see it by fishbowl · 2003-02-14 10:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Should the police officer be allowed to arrest these guys, just because it appears as though they are planning on robbing the bank?"

He is allowed to ask them to please stay put because he has some questions. They are allowed to walk away, not answer questions, or wait. Since it appears to a reasonable person that these people might be planning a specific crime, the officer is allowed to insist that they stay put, or, to invite them to his office. Or he can arrest them. At the instant that they are not free to leave, they are also entitled to the rights of the accused. In particular, it becomes the governments' responsibility to prove there was a conspiracy to rob a bank.

When it turns out that they were waiting for a bus to go on a rock climbing trip, they aren't entitled to a refund on their tickets. (I personally feel the government should be required to compensate those who it accuses but turn out to be innocent. I take this to the extreme that, I believe a single case of an execution where the prisoner is later proven innocent, should be serious enough to bankrupt a State in compensation to the victim's family. Every day you're in prison under a false accusation should be worth a few thousand bucks. Governments should face really harsh consequences for fuckups like that -- consequences serious enough that they stand to lose their power to govern.)

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:How I see it by mpe · 2003-02-14 10:38 · Score: 1

That is the reason why many states have laws against possessing buglary tools... because intent is so hard to prove until the crime has been committed.

Since the supposed standard of proof in a criminal court is "beyond reasonable doubt" it should be hard to prove guilt.
Also numbers of arrests or convictions are not a good metric for performance of a criminal justice system.

Not the ONLY thing DirecTV is using DMCA on by essell · 2003-02-14 05:56 · Score: 5, Informative

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

DirecTV has been engaged in a sort of legalized extortion scheme against people who have purchased smartcard equipment from raided dealers in the USA, undoubtably as part of a plea bargain with such dealers. Yes, these dealers marketed their products towards DSS, but standard ISO smartcard equipment? Come on. The interesting thing about buying products from these dealers was that smartcard programmers, emulators, etc from them was MUCH cheaper than buying from a non-DSS oriented business. To put things in perspective, the average asking price to settle out-of-court with DirecTV is to the tune of $3,000 to $4,000.. again, for the mere purchase/possesion of smartcard equipment.

If you are interested in these cases as well as other satellite related legal issues, please visit http://www.legal-rights.org. There is a wealth of information here.

--
i swear my userid used to be lower.

Why this case? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

You've got to hand it to the government-- It looks as though they *finally* found a "legit" DMCA case they can prosecute to use to demonstrate the constitutionality and legitimacy of the law and establish precident for cases to follow. Had they pursued several earlier cases that we're all familiar with, the law would could have been weakened or even shot down.

People who support this "good" example of the DMCA (one comment here says it's finally being used the way it was intended) may be missing the legal ramifications-- this strawman case can make all-too-common abuses harder to fight.

Oh yes. I am not a lawyer.

FSCKTV by Jonboy+X · 2003-02-14 05:58 · Score: 1

Heh, these guys make the dude at fscktv look like a script kiddie...

--

"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al

Logicial flaw... by sdo1 · 2003-02-14 05:59 · Score: 1

Frankly this is the only application of the DMCA that I've seen to date that I think is reasonable. You've got people creating devices to decrypt copyrighted material that people could legitimately pay for and play in any manner they wanted to.

So by that logic, Jon Lech Johansen and Dmitri Sklyarov are criminals too, right?

I don't think so. If all these guys did was create the tools, then they're no more criminal than Jon and Dmitri were. Now if they were using those tools for copyright infringement, that's another story (and that's what they should be prosecuted under).

The problem with the DMCA is that there's already laws against copyright infringement. It's redundant and goes a step (or a mile as the case may be) beyond what is needed.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

DTV by blackmonday · 2003-02-14 06:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

My friend got busted for this, because he bought a smart card programmer online. DTV sued the company (Whiteviper) and became owner of all their assets. They then tried to extort money from all the people who had purchased the smart card programmer. Thing is, there are legit reasons to own it. Blank smart cards not compatible with DTV for example. And, my friend never used the programmer to steal satellite. In the end he ignored their extortion efforts and they seem to have let it go. What has happened to fair use? I think that politicians and their campaign funds have as much to do with this than the pirates.

Get punk rock!
Black Monday

Slim? by tommck · 2003-02-14 06:06 · Score: 4, Informative

if you are on the internet, then id say your chances of being out of range of any kind of cable provider are slim to none.

I have internet access (dialup from home). Some people only have it at work. I do not have cable access. I must use Satellite TV to get anything. I don't understand why you think that Internet access and cable access always go together. Everyone with a phone can have internet access....

T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

Keep it off my property by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:07 · Score: 0

And I won't use it. I reserve the right to use anything that is beamed my way.

Gimme my brick back! by Atomizer · 2003-02-14 06:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Gimme my brick back! I thought you had it you dirty thief! And while I'm here the paperboy wants his $2!

Re:Gimme my brick back! by JAZ · 2003-02-14 06:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Absolutely! Howvever, I regret to inform you that the brick was chipped as it passed thru my window.

Since I had access to the brick, I was able to patch it, but I will only release the patched brick under the GPL. Fortunately, the brick no longer crashes windows.

If I return your brick and you use it, that building will clearly be a derivative work. If you lock that derivative building, I'll be forced to file suit against you for DMCA and GPL violations.

--

"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson

My Property by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:08 · Score: 0

If they broadcast the signals on my property. I should be able todo anything I want to with them. If they dont want me decoding/messing with them, get them out of my home and out of my airspace.

Let me direct you... by hackwrench · 2003-02-14 06:11 · Score: 1

I found this page, which I bookmarked for people like you who just don't get it. If there's still something you need clearing up, post a response to this with your difficulty and I'll see if I can help.

Re:Let me direct you... by Suidae · 2003-02-14 07:10 · Score: 1

Interesting page, but the issue is less about philosophy than it is about economics. The people of the US want individuals to spend there time inovating and producing ideas and implimentations of ideas that will raise our standard of living. In order to encourage this, the people grant the individual the right to control, for a limited time, the way in which his ideas are used.

You could consider laws about physical property in the same light. Society grants to the individual the right to 'own' things. This is to encourage individuals to create things, activities that would be much less common if individuals had no right to keep things.

The baker would have much less reason to bake if the townspeople could simply take the loaves he produces. Of course the baker could attempt to physically defend the loaves, but that is an inefficent use of resources. This is a fact recognized by most people, and so societies create formalized rules regarding the handling of produced goods.

Ownership of physical things is no more 'natural' than ownership of nonphysical things. Its all rules we made up and agree to abide by so that we can all benefit.
Re:Let me direct you... by yourmom16 · 2003-02-14 09:36 · Score: 0

there are 2 problems with your analogy. First copyright violation is not stealing because they still hhave the information. Second they are sending the signals into everybodys house, so its more like the baker throwing loaves into peoples houses and them taking those loaves then

--
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
Re:Let me direct you... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2003-02-14 19:27 · Score: 1

- Society grants to the individual the right to
- 'own' things.

Nope. There is no such entity as "society" and there are no "rights". What the human species determined over time was that obtaining resources by coercion was an unproductive use of resources, whereas trade was a productive use of resources. Therefore coercion is unjustified on "economic" grounds, which do not depend on the notion of rights.

You are correct in your analysis of the baker.

You are also correct in that all of these things are rules people made up in order to survive.

However the notion that IP is one of those rules is incorrect. IP was created by states for coercive purposes - read the history of copyright in English law - it was a charter from royalty for purposes of censorship. Later, those who profited from copyright and looked to lose when royalty lost its power sought to justify the principle by reference to its alleged practical result of encouraging production of IP and the supposed increased compensation to the producers of such and therefore the supposed benefit to "society" - none of which has been established as an economic fact.

What we do know - as is established by Ms. McElroy at the referenced page and by Austrian School economists elsewhere - is that "IP" is an oxymoron and all forms of IP protection (copyright, patents, trade secrets, etc.) are coercive interventions in the free market that distort the market and therefore harm that market - which market is everyone who is not a direct beneficiary of such laws. (And in fact, it could be argued that even the beneficiaries may well be harmed.)

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:Let me direct you... by Suidae · 2003-02-16 05:26 · Score: 1

- Society grants to the individual the right to 'own' things.

Nope. There is no such entity as "society" and there are no "rights".

By 'society' I simply mean the collection of people who live within a commonly agreed upon boundary and who (mostly) agree to live under the rule of law.

'rights' are simply ideas about actions that society has determined can be applied to members. Rights exist in the same way that laws exist, because we all (mostly) agree that they do.

Rights are just one of those made up things that wouldn't be necessary if we didn't interact with each other.

IP most certainly is one of those rules, although it is a relatively new one and thus hasn't had all the details worked out and isn't as widely accepted. It is a rule about who gets to determine how some specific pieces of information are handled.

Arguing that IP does not exist is as silly as arguing that laws do not exist.

Part of the problem with IP is that it is very much founded in the idea that the only or primary reason content producers produce is to gain money. This may not be true. Many writers write because it is their passion to do so. Most have hundreds of stories that will never be published or even read by anyone.

Money derived from IP laws does support a very large infrastructure that is currently necessary to support television broadcast, but it probably won't be much longer before that distribution model is no longer needed.

IP certainly still needs tuning, but as more aspects of life start to fall into the domain of pure information, I think we'll see more need for good methods of handling IP rights. We shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Re:Let me direct you... by Suidae · 2003-02-16 05:45 · Score: 1

First copyright violation is not stealing because they still hhave the information.

That is a very limited view of theft. If I have an authentic picture of the president doing lines off the presidential seal in the oval office, I have more than a photograph. If you scan the photograph and post it on the internet, you have deprived me of several things.

You'd think that readers of slashdot, people who presumably deal with information on a daily basis, would have more of an appriciation for the nuances of its handling.

Second they are sending the signals into everybodys house, so its more like the baker throwing loaves into peoples houses and them taking those loaves then

So, any form of passive scanning by any one is fine by you? Anyone can roll down the street using any form of passive scanning available to search your house and body? (I'm limiting this to passive scanning, the reception of spectrum generated and released by the object to be scanned, no x-ray backscatter scans or the like).

You have no problem with anyone sitting in the street in front of peoples houses reconstructing the images on their CRTs from the leaked radiation and doing anything they want with it?

My point is that it is unreasonable to assert that you have the right to use any signal that you can extract from the space around you, because it is not reasonable to perfectly shield all the equipment we use.

You can receive cable television by receiving the leakage from the cable companies distribution boxes, that doesnt mean its free. Heck, why limit this to reception through the air? If you run a coax cable over there you can get even higher quality 'leakage' right through the cable.

Just because you can doesn't mean its right.
Re:Let me direct you... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2003-02-16 13:14 · Score: 1

- By 'society' I simply mean the collection of
- people who live within a commonly agreed upon
- boundary and who (mostly) agree to live under
- the rule of law.

No problem with that definition except the second part which implies reasoned agreement (as opposed to social conditioning).

- 'rights' are simply ideas about actions that
- society has determined can be applied to
- members.

Well, no, "rights" are supposedly inherent requirements for certain human needs. Actions are usually justified by reference to these "rights". The problem is, once you've identified these "needs", what do you accomplish by referring to them as "rights". My answer: mystical justification for calling ANY "need" a "right". My approach is better - justify behavior based on its economic impact on the advancement of the human species in the long run. No need to refer to mystical concepts...

- Rights exist in the same way that laws exist,

Well, yes, and no. "Rights" are nebulous concepts, as indicated above, and laws are simply codified justifications for the use of coercion.
Both exist without reference to concrete logical evaluations of their actual impact in human economic behavioral terms. In that respect, they are the same.

- because we all (mostly) agree that they do.
- Rights are just one of those made up things that
- wouldn't be necessary if we didn't interact with
- each other.

Correct about the latter part. The fact that humans are social animals requires behavioral regulation in order to advance the species. This is because humans invest effort in what works, just as an investor invests in an attempt to obtain monopoly profit. If coercion is perceived to be what works, humans will invest in it. The result, however, will be nonproductive, as the investment in coercion eventually results in everyone expending resources on preventing it and not on production of things that really would advance the species. This is the same effect as when the ROI for something in the market eventually reduces to the "general" rate of return.

- IP most certainly is one of those rules,
- although it is a relatively new one and thus
- hasn't had all the details worked out and isn't
- as widely accepted. It is a rule about who gets
- to determine how some specific pieces of
- information are handled.

It is an attempt to extend principles of contract to overcome principles of property which underly those contract principles. It is an attempt to control a person's use of property, and thereby deny that person any actual property.

- Arguing that IP does not exist is as silly as
- arguing that laws do not exist.

Not at all. Property precedes law. Property depends on various characteristics such as scarcity, alienability, and others. IP does not have these characteristics and therefore is not property - as Thomas Jefferson pointed out once.

- Part of the problem with IP is that it is very
- much founded in the idea that the only or
- primary reason content producers produce is to
- gain money. This may not be true. Many writers
- write because it is their passion to do so. Most
- have hundreds of stories that will never be
- published or even read by anyone.

That justification only came in after the original justification - censorship of IP output - was downgraded as the power of English royalty downgraded. See the history of copyright law in England. It's irrelevant, anyway. Whether producers produce for money or ego or whatever doesn't matter in the context of economic effects.

- IP certainly still needs tuning, but as more
- aspects of life start to fall into the domain of
- pure information, I think we'll see more need
- for good methods of handling IP rights. We
- shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the
- bathwater.

In fact, as someone else mentioned, once nanotech comes in, ALL property will essentially cease to be scarce and alienable. Nanotech (fully developed, that is) will essentially destroy the notion of economics (not to mention the notion of human). At that time, IP will be even MORE of a waste of time, not less.

More aspects of life becoming information is a good reason for opposing IP, which is a system for creating artifical scarcity, rather than reducing scarcity. The point of property rules is to handle the problem of rational distribution of (relatively) scarce resources. IP increases scarcity, it does not reduce it. Almost by definition, this is unproductive.

The notion that by increasing monopoly profit, one can induce more production, is quite reasonable - since investors invest in the hope of attaining monopoly profit. But if this is done by fiat rather than by economic action, the result is a distortion of market investment.

For example, one could argue that it might be preferably not to even have a massive entertainment industry, but rather expend that investment in disease prevention or scientific research or whatever. By artificially inflating the value of entertainment by granting monopoly profit rights, we are distorting capital and human energy investment patterns to the detriment of the species.

The point of the free market - when and if it is truly free, which has been rare if not nonexistent in history - is that it is merely the sum total of human behavior and therefore most closely reflects the needs and desires of the species (subject to that species stupidity, ignorance, irrationality, maliciousness and fear, of course). It is the only system that self-corrects for those defects rather than amplifying them as the state does.

IP is merely a state-imposed notion that a coercive monopoly is sometimes good. Jefferson didn't buy it and as more economists analyze the effects, it's justification is becoming very porous.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!

Fair use when the author refuses to sell copies by yerricde · 2003-02-14 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Then move.

What's the fastest way to immigrate legally?

Whether or not it costs them money is only part of the problem. The bottom line is that it's their content

* WARNING * IANAL * Oddball legal theory follows *

The fact that it doesn't cost the author money would seem to weigh heavily in the consumer's favor in fair use laws. An example of a fair use law in a country chosen at random is 17 USC 107, which bases the determination of fair use partly on "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It may be possible to argue that by not selling copies of a work in a particular geographical area, an author admits that there exists no "market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Another argument is that if you don't get the content through satellite, and it's important to you, then you'll rent/buy DVDs.

And if the author doesn't sell copies of the work in DVD, VHS, or any other popular video format, then it could be argued that the author admits absence of a "market for or value of the copyrighted work" in any popular video format.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Fair use when the author refuses to sell copies by diablobynight · 2003-02-14 06:47 · Score: 1

The author has said nothing like that. Maybe they don't sell it their because they don't want to have to service that area. It still gives you no right to steal it. i hope you go to jail for a long long time for stealing. People like you give the rest of us computer people a bad name.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:Fair use when the author refuses to sell copies by intermodal · 2003-02-14 07:30 · Score: 1

as well as people like you giving humans a bad name. Your rolling over like a two dollar whore at the idea that a company should be able to run information through my house without allowing me to make use of it without paying me for it is absurd. Grow a spine.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

The FBI Affadavit for the mpik arrest by b.foster · 2003-02-14 06:14 · Score: 5, Informative

can be found here.

Note that these were not small time players. This guy had $133,000 in DSS related monies flying through his Paypal account. (Also note that Paypal sent the FBI a transaction log, same day service, with no warrant. A sobering reminder that eBay/Paypal does not care about your privacy.)

Re:The FBI Affadavit for the mpik arrest by Technician · 2003-02-14 07:55 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, I find the cat and mouse game interesting. I follow the news. However to prevent being on the wrong side of the law, I do not have;
1 Cable TV
2 C band disk
3 DSS
Even though I was given a C band decoder, I have never put together enough hardware to be accused of theft of service. If I had service, I would be tempted to mess with it. Because of that, I just don't have anything to receive it. I had tinkered with cable long time ago when it was analog. A simple notch filter did wonders. I learned alot about designing filters and filter Q at that time. That was before the price was went over $10/month for basic. But that's all behind me now.

Now instead of paying for basic and being subject to legal action, I pay nothing and am not subject to legal action. I guess they prefer it that way.
The other reason I dropped cable was the overload of advertisements on the service I paid for to get rid of all the advertisements. I saw no value in it. Raising the price made it more a a waste of money.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:The FBI Affadavit for the mpik arrest by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-20 03:37 · Score: 0

I should have known it was Mr "Widen the page with my sig" again

This is sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

So basicly, these guys shouldn't even bother strenghthening their encrypted signal.

Smart card manufacturers shouldn't even bother makeing their cards more secure. After all, it is against the law to reverse engineer them, so no one will ever try.

If reverse engineering is against the law, only people that obey the law are going to care.

The criminals will ultiamately win because there is no immeadiate reason to make things more secure.

This DMCA will ultimately lead to a weakening in the security of all data systems

It is against the law to murder, yet people still do it.

Re:This is sad by filmcritic · 2003-02-14 21:19 · Score: 0

It is against the law to murder but what in hell does that have to do with the good old DMCA? Nothing. I love how these "thoughtful, intelligent" people on slushdot try to lump everything onto Microsoft and the DMCA. Get over the fact that it exists and nothing will ever change it. The facts are that everyone knows these jokers were intent on pirating DirecTV, the same way everyone knows Skylarov was going to pirate ebooks, and the same way everyone knows the DeCSS garbage was expressly for pirating DVDs. Right! Off you go, into the cell for THEFT, the same thing as swiping a jacket off the rack and walking out of the store. THEFT.

Throwing babies out of incubators by k2r · 2003-02-14 06:18 · Score: 1

> throwing babies out of incubators are the same thing.

Have you ever heard that the innocent Kuwait woman who reported the story of the babies was the daughter of the ambassador in fact? An that she hadn't been in Kuwait for years.

Just wondering whether you have any common base of information over there...

k2r

Re:Throwing babies out of incubators by teamhasnoi · 2003-02-14 06:44 · Score: 1

I actually highly doubt most of what I hear about that stuff; I was being facetious for the AC reply.. :)

Rights... by hackwrench · 2003-02-14 06:19 · Score: 2, Informative

You have the right to act on radio waves passing through your body as you have jurisdiction over your own body. This page applies here, too.

Re:Same thing Bush (America) is about to do to Ira by sbillard · 2003-02-14 06:20 · Score: 1

There is a big difference.
We are the only nation ever to have actually used these weapons on our enemies.

A message to DirectTV by bakawally · 2003-02-14 06:27 · Score: 1, Redundant

Dear DirectTV Inc, I would like to request that you stop sending signals onto my property. If you do not I will be forced to decrypt them and analyze them in the interest on nation security. We *are* supposed to stay extra vigilant. Thank You

Re:A message to DirectTV by mpe · 2003-02-15 00:55 · Score: 1

Dear DirectTV Inc, I would like to request that you stop sending signals onto my property. If you do not I will be forced to decrypt them and analyze them in the interest on nation security.

Alternativly you could send them an invoice for rent.

Interesting concept by Cleveland+Steamer · 2003-02-14 06:28 · Score: 1

The DMCA doesn't stand up very well when it comes to DVDs because when you buy a DVD you own the medium. Hence, it would seem that, under fair use rights, you can do nearly anything you want with the data on that medium.

In the case of satellite TV transmissions, who owns the medium? The satellite owners? The broadcasters? A government entity? I don't think we, as individuals, own the medium, here.

Anyone have any ideas about this?

DMCA does apply here by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:29 · Score: 0

DirecTV's two current access cards (HU and P4) currently encrypt the data that is stored on your access card. The people mentioned in this case develop and sell software and hardware which is used specifically to circumvent this encryption and allow you to place your own software on your access card which will give you free satellite service. This seems to be exactly what the DMCA is supposed to prevent. For more info visit dssware.com

Re:DMCA does apply here by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:55 · Score: 0

An additional note. Many people look at these charges as decoding the satellite signal that is sent to your house. That is a totall diffrent issue IMHO. Currently the only way to decode these satellite signals is to use a DTV receiver and modified access card, so the real issue is breaking the encryption on the access card.

I would like to see DirecTV's legal response if somebody developed a stand alone box that could descramble satellite signals without usign one of their access cards

Re:Not the same... by renehollan · 2003-02-14 06:31 · Score: 1

With regard to the UN, and those opposed to the use of force, force is already justified and authorize by the existing UN resolution signed by Iraq at the close of the First Gulf War. Iraq agreed to the terms, including unrestricted inspections by UN Weapons Inspectors, and he has failed to abide by the agreement. No further justification is required.

The UN's inaction serves only to undermine their effectiveness as a stabilizing force throughout the world. The dog has no teeth.

While I generally agree that non-conformance to the resolution Iraq signed at the end of the Gulf War justifies use of force, I'd think it should be for the U.N. Weapons Inspectors to determine if their access is unrestricted or not, and not the U.S.

Now, while such non-conformance existed in the past, the present situation appears to (a) be an attempt (or at least the appearance of same) to correct this non-conformance, and (b) investigation by said inspectors to determine conformance. So far, the inspectors' verdict appears to be "We don't know, yet."

While I am no friend of Iraq's regime, particularly given their history, and see the U.S.'s role in acting as "executioner" as fair, if unsavory; I do not think they should be "judge and jury" as well -- some impartial justification for force should be present to legitimize it.

Just because the jury is deliberating for a long time does not mean you get to hang the accused, though you can take all measures short of that to reduce any threat he may present (i.e. a buildup and massing of force is reasonable under the circumstances).

Bush may indeed be due his pound of flesh, but not with the premature spilling of civillian blood.

--
You could've hired me.

DMCA not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:35 · Score: 0

This was a just a case of theft, plain and simple. Using the DMCA in this case is stupid and an application of bad law. The accussed should try and get their cases tried under different statutes, one that make sense for this.

MOD PARENT UP by stagmeister · 2003-02-14 06:38 · Score: 1

Man, I wish I didn't use up all my mod points yesterday. This post gives some GREAT examples of why pre-emptive strikes and arrests are wrong and bad. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they will. If it looks like someone will do something illegal (say, for example, robbing a bank), then the police officer should watch them. The second they break into the bank itself, then they are committing a crime (breaking and entering), but before they actually do anything then they're just a bunch of bums sitting on the side of the road in black masks and carrying a pickaxe.

--
http://www.virtualvillagesquare.com/ Online Communities: The Next Generation

BOrn stupid and sadly with the ability to speak by diablobynight · 2003-02-14 06:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

The way I see it they are selling information that only has illegal application. In which case I think they should be held accountable for any crime created with their information. Such as if I gave someone exact information on how to kill a specific person. If that person suddenly gets killed I am going to have a rough time pleading I only was supplying information. Don't download data on how to steal shit, and you won't get in trouble. How hard is that. Don't break laws and you don't go to jail.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

Re:BOrn stupid and sadly with the ability to speak by mpe · 2003-02-14 11:21 · Score: 1

The way I see it they are selling information that only has illegal application.

No such entity, the same information would also enable someone to identify that application taking place. Also it can easily provide mays to stop it happening.

Don't download data on how to steal shit, and you won't get in trouble.

No stealing involved here, unless the people involved were distributing the content they had recieved there wouldn't be any copyright violation involved either. People with an approved reciever could just as easily enguage in copyright violation anyway.

Now that they have their foot in the door... by PyrotekNX · 2003-02-14 06:39 · Score: 1

Seems to me that the advocates for the DMCA have been searching for a legitimate case for a long time to get their law validated.

The decess case and skylarov were kind of grey because their 'crimes' could have been protected under fair use.

For the first time someone arrested under the DMCA will be prosecuted and probably lose their case. This will open the door for lesser crimes under the DMCA to be pursued.

Coupled with Homeland Security the DMCA and it's cousins; the govt will eventually squash people for even hinting that the govt is bad.

Our Govt has been slowed by the fact that we have undeniable rights and certain restrictions in The Constitution, but the country built by our forefathers is no more than an illusion or a memory.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

I simply can't believe this by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 06:40 · Score: 1, Troll

The bottom line is that it's their content, and they get to decide who gets it and for how much.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Ok, here's one for ya. I'm gonna start a company and become a competing service provider to DirecTV. I'm gonna deliver content to everyone's house, my delivery medium will be ping-pong balls. I'll have encrypted content written on each ping-pong ball, it'll probably be along the lines of "YUCK FOU".

I'm gonna start lobbing hundreds of these little suckers into your house every day. Now, if you touch them, pick them up, or even ATTEMPT to read the message on them (unless of course you've got a monthly contract with me to do so, low price of $49.99), you're breaking the law and I'm gonna put your ass in jail.

Geeeez. It makes my skin crawl to see how many people buy into D-TV's argument. It'd be laughable if they weren't so successful at brainwashing all you monkeys.

Re:I simply can't believe this by osgeek · 2003-02-14 06:56 · Score: 1

Ok, here's one for ya. I'm gonna start a company and become a competing service provider to DirecTV. I'm gonna deliver content to everyone's house, my delivery medium will be ping-pong balls. I'll have encrypted content written on each ping-pong ball, it'll probably be along the lines of "YUCK FOU".

Do you even begin to think that sending ping pong balls through someone's house at all equates with sending a radio wave through someone's house? One is a noticeable physical object that bounces noisily, and the other is a harmless electromagnetic wave that is not perceivable with our built-in human sensors, and unlikely to affect standard consumer electronic components.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Right back at ya.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:I simply can't believe this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:57 · Score: 0

Apples and oranges my confused friend.
DirecTV does not purposely transmit their satellite streams, which are intangible objects, through your house or body or whatever you can think of. It just happens, as it is the nature of the medium. They will, however, purposely send their streams to you if you have paid for the privilege of receiving these streams.
In your example, you are purposely lobbing actual tangible objects into someone's domain, regardless of whether or not they paid to receive them. If you toss your ping pong balls into my house, then I'm going to keep them. You were purposely tossing them into my window, so you obviously want me to keep these ping pong balls.
Your argument is highly incorrect, and is nothing more than a strawman designed to rationalize the unauthorized use of a service for which you have not been authorized to use.
Just because some random stream comes through your house at random does not automatically give you the right to claim use to said stream. But, if you don't mind that I eavesdrop on your cell phone conversations, then I guess we have nothing to debate here. After all, your cell phone stream entered my house! :)
Re:I simply can't believe this by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 07:48 · Score: 1

The point I was illustrating was not the impact of the transmission, it's the claim of ownership. It's ridiculous for me to claim that I still own those ping-pong balls after tossing 'em at you. It's equally ridiculous that DTV claims ownership on their signals and tries to tell me what I can or can't do with them.
Re:I simply can't believe this by osgeek · 2003-02-14 08:16 · Score: 1

The point I was illustrating was not the impact of the transmission, it's the claim of ownership. It's ridiculous for me to claim that I still own those ping-pong balls after tossing 'em at you.

I get that, but you're thinking of property ownership as some god/universe given absolute right that is ideal in all ways. For most tangible things, it makes sense, but for EM radiation, it really doesn't. Don't get hung up on the whole "it's in my house" thing. It's not what's all that important. What is important is that we all share the RF world, and we've got to try to make the best use of it possible. Looking at EM radiation inadvertently passing through your house the same way as looking at a bunch of ping pong balls doesn't seem to provide us with a useful analogy.

It's equally ridiculous that DTV claims ownership on their signals and tries to tell me what I can or can't do with them.

Umm, so maybe you should be able to resell that signal?

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:I simply can't believe this by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 08:30 · Score: 1

Umm, so maybe you should be able to resell that signal?
We just got into this at work too. Reselling is different. Dare I use this word on slashdot, but now I'm trying to profit off of DTV's invention. This is clearly a no-no.
The point is that for personal use, inside my house, I have (or should have) the right to do whatever I damn well please with whatever signals DTV is sending in there. That is my RIGHT, and I refuse to give it up because a large company is concerned about their bottom line. It's amazing to me how easily people are convinced to give up their freedoms when big bullies spin it the right way (and buy legislation).
Re:I simply can't believe this by osgeek · 2003-02-14 08:54 · Score: 1

We just got into this at work too. Reselling is different. Dare I use this word on slashdot, but now I'm trying to profit off of DTV's invention. This is clearly a no-no.

Well, I'm not the one throwing around absolute-sounding statements about "tries to tell me what I can or can't do with them".

It's amazing to me how easily people are convinced to give up their freedoms when big bullies spin it the right way (and buy legislation).

And to me, it's amazing to see how people will rationalize taking things that they don't have a right to, and would eagerly set up freeloader-friendly systems that would completely destroy the entertainment and informational content system that most of us use and enjoy daily.

If you want to go after Disney for getting copyrights extended to a ridiculous length of time, or the RIAA for making all of us pay a tax on blank recording media -- no matter its use -- I'm right behind you. But this vibe you're giving off that all content producers and transporters are the enemy and shouldn't be allowed to make a buck unless they use perfect encryption with idealized technology is just way wrong and should be fought vigorously.

It reminds me of the whole "if you leave your front door unlocked, it's your problem if someone walks in your front door and steals your stuff". At what point do we start being decent to one another and respecting each others' rights to decide how they want their unique creations to be used? DirecTV makes a reasonable effort to secure their content. The RF signal passing through your house doesn't interfere with you in any way. Why are you determined to take it and show everyone else how to take it... but only if you don't make a profit?

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:I simply can't believe this by SurfTheWorld · 2003-02-14 08:57 · Score: 1

Yes I mind that you eavesdrop on my cell phone conversation. Should you have a right to? In my opinion yes. If the cellular telephone company makes the decision to *not* encrypt their channels, or if they do a piss poor job at encrypting their channels, then I would *expect* my conversation to be hacked.

In my opinion, the DTV signal argument postulated by AgentTim3 is similar to the telnet vs ssh debate. Let's say that you are a company that provides Unix shell accounts to people. In exchange for $$$, you offer service to a Unix account. If you provide telnet access, and somebody snoops the packets, steals a username and password, and breaks into your account - have they broken a law? Sadly yes (the DMCA).

Fact is the company should have used ssh as an interaction mechanism. Similarly, if somebody out there receives DTV's signal and decodes it, are they any more guilty than the guy who packet sniffed?

Unfortunately, both situations above are considered illegal. In my opinion this is another case of government attempting to regulate stupidity. If "Shells 'R Us" is dumb enough to offer telnet access, and consumers are dumb enough to use it, they deserve the repurcussions of having someone tear them a new one. Likewise, if DTV doesn't make the investment in equipment and software to stay ahead of the hacking community, then they deserve the diminished revenue they receive.

This will definitely get modded up for flamebait.

--
Do it for da shorties
Re:I simply can't believe this by SurfTheWorld · 2003-02-14 09:09 · Score: 1

I think that a company should be able to control distribution channels of their content in electronic format. Where I believe I differ from most in the mechanism to achieve the control. They (the industry (purposely vague reference)) have chosen to invest $$$ in lawyers and lobbyists to create laws like the DMCA. When they believe somebody has stolen service, they pay more $$$ to more lawyers to prosecute. And then we (the defendants) pay $$$ for our own lawyers. And we go to court, which lots of times takes months. Bah! Net result: lots of $$$ spent, lawyers getting most of it. And what happens if somebody outside US jurisdiction violates the law? Is DTV going to travel to Afghanistan to hunt down Ahkmed Ahkmed Jallalbad for getting his "The Hot Network" fix? No. So the laws work great inside the US but don't work outside our borders. That's a winning strategy in an increasingly global economy!

My alternative is to take all the $$$ that would be spent on lawyers, beurocrats, and lobbyists, and ... improve the technology. If DTV took all of the loot it spent prosecuting people and lobbying, I believe they could create a virtually uncrackable platform. Let's get PKI to be almost a household term. Let's get thumbprint identification on the remote controls of our satellite boxes that can authenticate our service. What's the net result with this approach? Fewer court cases, technology that can be exported beyond US borders, less government bullshit, and a happier more secure piece of equipment.

I don't know why more people don't see it this way....

--
Do it for da shorties
Re:I simply can't believe this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 09:21 · Score: 0

What if that person just views the packets you are sending? What if that person breaks the encryption on your ssh packets? What if that person owns the router you are senind your packets across? What if your packets are digital media you purchased legally?
Re:I simply can't believe this by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 09:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

SurfTheWorld has an excellent point here. This reminds me of that Heinlein quote:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or
individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,
or turned back."
-Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
This is from 1939, and people still haven't gotten it. DTV has chosen to use a public medium to broadcast their signal. Well, signal-decryption technology has now grown to the point that people can view their broadcasts. So what do they do? Immediately turn to the courts, and try to screw people over and take away their rights. The fact that this outrageous behavior is not only tolerated but accepted amazes me. Whatever happened to inventors and entrepreneurs making money by virtue of the value of their products, rather than sueing the hell out of people?? DTV chose a public medium, now let's see. If they weren't aware that everyone was gonna get the signals, why'd they bother encrypting at all? No, they knew damn well, they spent a little money on encrypting it, and now when that's no good anymore, instead of spending some more money and making their service better, they're spending it on the courts.
I agree, I don't know why more people don't see it this way...
Re:I simply can't believe this by SurfTheWorld · 2003-02-14 09:54 · Score: 1

Another interesting discussion is: where does DTV draw the line?

According to them it's illegal for me to intercept and decode their signal into a format that I can display on a television. What if I take the EM energy and convert it to electricity? Would DTV then come and arrest me?

Signal meters aren't illegal - why not? They receive the signal and convert it to electrical format.

There are a lot of interesting questions one can ask about where exactly the line lies in this debate.

--
Do it for da shorties
Re:I simply can't believe this by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 10:46 · Score: 1

...that would completely destroy the entertainment and informational content system that most of us use and enjoy daily.
Wow. I'm glad you're getting your daily dose of DTV/Congress-recommended vitamins, minerals, and spoon-fed monkey piss. That's a load of incendiary DTV propaganda. From what I understand, there's no magic "black box" like there is for cable, they change codes regularly and it requires fairly constant web research and updating whatever equipment you're using to get the signal. There's no chance in hell the majority of people are going to put up with that, the same 99% of people that pay for it now are gonna keep paying for it forever. DTV would certainly have the capability to keep several steps ahead of the hackers if they'd quit blowing money on lawyers harassing innocent people and use it to advance their technology.
make a buck unless they use perfect encryption with idealized technology is just way wrong and should be fought vigorously.
No, what should be fought vigorously is large evil stupid corporations that make a bunch of bucks using a particular technology, and then whine, cry, sue people, and infringe upon personal freedoms when technological progress renders their service unprofitable. DTV chose to deliver their service over a public medium. They knew it was publicly available, otherwise they wouldn't have encrypted it at all, now would they? They do NOT have the right to cry foul and run to the courts simply because their obsolete technology allows the public to view their transmissions. The onus is 100% on DTV to keep funding their R&D efforts to stay ahead of the technology curve. If they can't cut it and go out of business, well then they deserve it for having a stupid business model.
Why are you determined to take it and show everyone else how to take it... but only if you don't make a profit?
Ok, one, I don't give half a damn about DTV or its content because it's mindless crap. What I absolutely care about are my personal rights and freedoms, and when I see a company stealing those from me, I get upset. DTV wants to live in my house and tell me what I can and can't do. That's complete, utter, total, flaming bullshit.
Two, the profit thing is a completely different argument and I'm not really concerned about it. Using DTV's proprietary (and presumably trademarked, patented, whatever) technology for my own profit is an entirely different can of worms, and IS most likely infringement. But don't try to use it as a stepping stone to take away my rights to what I can do, in my house, with what DTV is freely giving me.
Re:I simply can't believe this by osgeek · 2003-02-14 11:14 · Score: 1

infringe upon personal freedoms when technological progress renders their service unprofitable

This is the part that gets me more than anything. The personal freedoms that are being so brutally infringed upon in your estimation are bullshit... nothing. "You" wouldn't even be aware of the EM radiation, if you didn't have special equipment to detect it. It's only an infringement in the sense that you want to take any and every excuse to fuck over "the Man" or the big bad corporation.

I'm not prone to ad hominem, but your arguments are weak, destructive, selfish, and immature in the extreme. I'm really hoping that not many people are swayed by them.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:I simply can't believe this by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 11:48 · Score: 1

Please. Who's fucking who over here? "the Man" as you say is busy sending threatening letters to anyone who was unfortunate enough to buy a smart-card writer online where DTV can find out about it. 3500 bucks to settle, or you're looking at 5 years jail time / $500K fine. Why do you think people are angry and call the "big bad corporation" lots of nasty names? DTV's not playing nice, they could drop all the lawsuits, quit wasting their time chasing around 1% of the people, and make it enough work to hack their signals that it'd be 0.0001% that actually bother to do it. DTV has only turned themselves into "the Man" with their Nazi tactics.
Anyway, it's the whole concept that scares me to death. You're right, I wouldn't be aware of the EM radiation. What you're saying is, DTV sends something into my house that I have no knowledge of, then abuses legislation and wants to fine me or toss me in jail if I discover this intrusion and try to do anything with it? What other things am I "not aware of" that I used to have the right to do, and are slowly being taken away behind my back? It's a dangerous and slippery slope, my friend.
I doubt you have to worry about people being swayed, I'm simply stunned at the number of people here that are so willing to hand over control without a second thought.
So what's your deal, I don't understand why you're fighting so hard. You work for DTV? Have the service, pay for it, jealous of hackers? Do you really honestly believe they're in danger of going under because of this? Or just like to argue and play Devil's advocate?
Re:I simply can't believe this by osgeek · 2003-02-14 15:39 · Score: 1

So what's your deal, I don't understand why you're fighting so hard. You work for DTV?

Nope.

Have the service, pay for it, jealous of hackers?

Nope. Extended basic cable at the moment, because I don't feel like I can justify spending the extra money on all of the movie channels and stuff through more cable packages or a dish.

Do you really honestly believe they're in danger of going under because of this?

At the moment? Of course not. I don't believe that I'm in serious danger of being murdered at the moment, but I wouldn't sit still if you were proposing whacking people either.

Or just like to argue and play Devil's advocate?

Like to argue? Not really. I don't usually back down from them either.

Not to be intentionally mean or anything, but I really do believe that the little bit of an argument that you have is (as I mentioned before), selfish and immature. It ignores the larger social and economic consequences of using negligible, almost imaginiary, rights infringement arguments to demolish the greater good. While completely willing to demolish that greater good, you have the nerve to accuse those wiser than you of being sheep giving in to bullies. They're not bullies if they're just protecting what's theirs, they're just companies (made up of people just like us) trying to make a reasonable profit for a service that they provide.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:I simply can't believe this by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 20:35 · Score: 1

Not to be intentionally mean or anything, but I really do believe that the little bit of an argument that you have is (as I mentioned before), selfish and immature. It ignores the larger social and economic consequences of using negligible, almost imaginiary, rights infringement arguments to demolish the greater good. While completely willing to demolish that greater good, you have the nerve to accuse those wiser than you of being sheep giving in to bullies. They're not bullies if they're just protecting what's theirs, they're just companies (made up of people just like us) trying to make a reasonable profit for a service that they provide.
Alright, been out drinking all night, but whatever. Let's see here, I think we're making some progress. You're talking about "demolishing a greater good". Can you be more specific about this? What exactly is being demolished, and how exactly am I demolishing it with my point of view?
Making a reasonable profit? You're gonna have to back that up with specific numbers, and I don't mean bullshit like Sammy Smith in Nevada cost us $500 million this year with his Internet sales of DTV piracy equipment. Exactly how much of a profit is DTV already making? I'm willing to bet 1) it's already pretty damn "reasonable" and 2) the actual impact that so-called piracy has is completely marginal.
Companies "made up of people like us"? I hardly think so. Or at least, I'll have to respectfully ask you to exclude me from that, because I'm not an asshole. Don't get me wrong, I think DTV has a wonderful concept, provides an incredible service to tons of people and has a really great chance at succeeding. Up til recently I'd been trying to figure out how to fit it into my budget. At the moment, I'm sorry but the company is being run by assholes, and I've lost all respect for it. If I or someone like me worked for DTV, I'd hand everyone in the company a giant-sized dose of Reality(tm) and we'd drop these stupid lawsuits and work on bettering our encryption to stay ahead of hackers. I'm forward-thinking enough and wise enough to realize that business models based on a constantly changing and evolving technology NEED to also evolve themselves, or else they will become obsolete and unprofitable.
Last point, "protecting what's theirs". I'm sorry, but you're helping to perpetuate an assumption that is absolutely incorrect. By broadcasting to everyone over a public medium, DTV is GIVING AWAY these transmissions. They no longer have ANY legitimate argument by which to claim that it's "theirs". The idea of having any ability whatsoever to protect something that you've already freely given away is completely asinine.
In truth, I'd love to work for DTV and work on kick-ass encryption schemes. I think it'd be a tremendously rewarding and fun job, knowing that I'm in competition against a mass of real human opponents, each working to one-up the other. It'd be a great time. But at this point, I never would, and DTV loses all my personal knowledge and insight into possible upgrades to their systems, because I'm frankly PISSED at their heavy-handed, idiotic tactics in attempting to deal with a problem that they've created and handed to themselves.

So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:41 · Score: 0

The agressors don't get to make the rules.

If the Japs didn't want to get nuked, they should not have attacked.

Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 14:20 · Score: 0

Gee, lame excuse.
1. So Iraq hasn't attacked US
2. No real proof that Iraq has WMD
3. War is mainly about stealing Iraq's oil or at least getting it at cheap rates.

you sir, are a hypocrite
Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 17:23 · Score: 0

Real proof? How much do you need? A nuke on US soil? That is what it will be if we delay too long because people do not realize how inadequate our method of finding "real proof" is. There is plenty of evidence already to support that they have WMD.

Re:Same thing Bush (America) is about to do to Ira by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:49 · Score: 0

Everyone is complaining that these guys got arrested for producing devices and software that allow hacking of the Satalite networks. And that they shouldn't be arrested because they didn't do any hacking themselves. Should they be prosecuted?

Well, the US has 156,000 troops about to invade Iraq because they are building Weapons of Mass destruction. They haven't used them to to cause any destruction, but they are building them. Is there any difference?

No difference. This is typical America for you. We prosecute people because their tools could be used to illegally access content. And we invade countries because they could maybe one day become a threat to us. Neither action is justified. The government should chill out.

Your flat out lying by diablobynight · 2003-02-14 06:51 · Score: 2, Informative

That's not how transmission law works. especially if you live in the UK or US. That signal being transmitted is on a licensed band, and therefor has the legal right to cross into your property without you tampering with it. Just like cellular transmissions and police bands. If you were to start coding your own cell phone and using different frequencies in your house, you would be just as liable and would go to jail. If you have a problem, bitch to your government control agency for licensing a band that goes through your house, or if your in the states call the FCC and bitch. Or just stop being stupid. If I drop my wallet in your yard. It's still mine, and if you take it, it's still stealing.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

Re:Your flat out lying by intermodal · 2003-02-14 07:24 · Score: 1

no, i am quite afraid your analogy is flawed on a fundamental level. If you drop your wallet on my lawn, and I take it, then it is only stealing if you do not come back looking for it and I fail to give it to you. If your dog shits on my lawn, and I use that shit to fertilize my garden, is that stealing? to fix your analogy, DirecTV has a dog that shits on everyone's lawn, and then asks people to subscribe to their shit, but does not let everyone do so regardless of their lawn shitting. If a dog shits on my lawn, i will do as I see fit with that fecal matter. If you broadcast over a wide area, don't get upset when someone picks up that signal. If your encryption doesn't keep them out, get better encryption if thats what concerns you. Just because you encrypt something you broadcast (as opposed to a focused transmission like email), it doesnt make it your God-given right to let only those you want to read it to read it.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Your flat out lying by diablobynight · 2003-02-14 07:28 · Score: 1

I notice you didn't acknowledge my cell phone point. I guess that's because you couldn't refute it. And no by actuality the owner doesn't have to know the object is gone for it to be stealing. It's your job to turn that wallet into the proper athorities if you know it isn't yours. And then after a certain amount of time it becomes yours, but only after turning it in.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:Your flat out lying by intermodal · 2003-02-14 07:43 · Score: 1

I also noticed that you didn't really read that post. because my remarks about being sent to a specific person covers cell phones as well. And re: the wallet, it is not my responsibility to return the wallet if you left it there, though because I am a nice person I would likely check it for ID so i could contact the owner. If you leave something purposely on my lawn without my knowing whose it is or why it is there, it is not instantly my duty to do as you wish me to. I could pick it up and chuck it in a trash can without even opening it if i cared to, and that would not be stealing. It would be your loss due to your own gross negligence of your property, for which I would not be liable.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Your flat out lying by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:47 · Score: 0

Hmm... way back when, in the Analog cell phone days, it used to be possible to pick up analog cell phone conversationlets on the upper ends of the UHF TV band.

Was that signal theft? Not at that time. It took things like Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wa) recording a cell phone conversation of Newt Gingrich, and then telling the world about it, for the laws to change WRT cell phones.

It is still not illegal to drive around with a CB and listen in on Ch. 14, what most wireless phones broadcast on (not the newer 900MHz, 2.4GHz etc phones), just like it is not illegal for you to otherwise overhear a conversation and act on it (it maybe illegal to actively attempt to overhear said conversation...).

The lameity of the DMCA is that it lets the broadcaster say, "my content is encrypted". They could even be as simple technically to say an analog SSB signal is "encrypted", or their digital signal is a simple XOR with 10101010 or equally simpleton.

If I lose something, it's lost. If I can at a later time prove it was at one time mine to the person who currently has it, I do certainly expect them to give it back to me, as do most people.

By your poor analogy, it is technically illegal to walk along the road next to a golf course and snag the mishit golf balls for yourself. After all, I would be taking something that was not mine w/o turning it in to the authorities first...
Re:Your flat out lying by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:50 · Score: 0

>By your poor analogy, it is technically illegal >to walk along the road next to a golf course and >snag the mishit golf balls for yourself. After >all, I would be taking something that was not >mine w/o turning it in to the authorities >first... Ummm why are you trying to make his point, what you just said, is illegal.
Re:Your flat out lying by intermodal · 2003-02-14 08:41 · Score: 1

it's not a matter of strict law...it a matter of de facto law. If the person is not coming to get it, there is no risk in taking what has been abandoned. If I know that Golfer X is not coming to get his mishit ball, there is no reason I should not take it. same goes for signals sent one way onto my land.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Your flat out lying by diablobynight · 2003-02-14 09:50 · Score: 1

So by your argument I should be allowed to just make my own sattelite modem and download information off the internet through it, as long as all my uploads go through my regular modem. Then i am only recieving a signal broadcasted on my land. Your an Idiot, Please stop talking. Your wrong. Accept it and move on.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:Your flat out lying by intermodal · 2003-02-14 10:05 · Score: 1

no, your logic is incorrect on that. if i am sending out packets on a modem that cause me to send information via the satellite to myself, that is abuse of their satellite, and is comandeering it, which is wrong. IF (note, that is an IF) someone with legitimate access to request information from that satellite chooses to download something and i pick it up and also save it without requesting the packets myself, there is nothing wrong with that since they are broadcasting it over a wide area and indeed on my reciever. You cannot win this arguement, diablo. The subject is too abstract to allow normal property laws to apply.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Your flat out lying by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-16 13:36 · Score: 0

I don't feel like signing in, but actually what you just described, packet sniffing a sattelite connection, that is illegal, next time you do it, report yourself to the FCC and we will all be happier to see you in jail.
Re:Your flat out lying by intermodal · 2003-02-16 14:33 · Score: 1

as I have said many times before in this flamewar, which has provided me the opportunity to make fun of many an idiot such as yourself, that this is an ideological debate, not a legal one. I do not packet sniff satellite connections myself, but I defend fervently the right of those who do so to continue to without fear of legal bullying. Please feel free to deposit your head in a basket before your body leaves the grounds. Thank you.

-the management

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

You are all making a stupid argument by diablobynight · 2003-02-14 06:55 · Score: 1

Ping pong balls are physical objects. If you talk on a cell phone on one side of my house and the antenna for that cell phone is on the other side of my house. I have no right to start using that frequency for listening to your conversation, because it is a licensed frequency and a company paid to license it. If you have a problem with this aspect of the law, you'll need to talk to the FCC not DTV. The same argument can be put to Wireless Broadband starting up in many of the states, if you find a way to hack into their connection and start using free wireless bandwidth, that is breaking the law, they are paying to transmit that signal and you have no right to it according to the FCC. So bitch somewhere else if your going to do it like an idiot. They are stealing, stealing stealing. and you want to make it ok, so you can too.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you

Re:You are all making a stupid argument by intermodal · 2003-02-14 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Once again, I must post another rebuttal to your retarded impression of property law. You behave as if it is the right of the companies to control what I do with what flies through my property. I disagree, and consider any unauthorized material on my land, be it physical or frequency-based, to be fair game for my use. So unless they care to encrypt it a little better, I'll use it if I care to. NOTE: i do not watch TV or care whether DirecTV stands or falls. OK, I lied. I would prefer they fall, simply because they are on the intellectual property side of the arguement.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 07:55 · Score: 0

So then do you advocate the eavesdropping on cell phone conversations, simply because of some absurd notion of "you beamed your signal on my property?"
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by diablobynight · 2003-02-14 07:55 · Score: 1

But it isn't unauthorized signals on your land. You purchased land from a government who controls the laws that are enforced on said land. This government, be it the United States, then licensed a company to send that signal. It is authorized, and it is illegal to steal it, and if DTV falls what good would that do those of us who can't get cable you idiotic bastard. Do you expect a company to put a multi million dollar sattelite in space, pay millions to send content out through it, and have no one pay for it? You dolt. Things have to be paid for or you won't have them, if everyone stole like these idiots, companies wouldn't be able to afford to even have this technology.

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 07:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, you have no right to transmit on my cell phone or DTV's frequencies. And you're right about the wireless thing, but again that's transmitting on it. Different argument, dude. Sitting there and listening to it is perfectly fine, if you're broadcasting your wireless broadband through my house you better hope you've got good encryption because otherwise I'm watching the packets float by.
They are stealing, stealing stealing. and you want to make it ok, so you can too.
Actually, I don't have DTV, don't have any descramblers, and don't care to because I don't care to watch anything that's on. What I care about is not flopping over on the ground when big companies purchase legislation that takes my rights away so they can squeeze out more profits.
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by intermodal · 2003-02-14 08:03 · Score: 1

It is indeed unauthorized. I did not authorize it. And i am an idiotic bastard for not caring whether a service I do not care about exists? I do not like TV, and I do not feel that their service benefits society. I do not expect them to run satellites to transmit content at all. They do that of their own volition. If they are going to use it to shower signals upon my land, I will do with that signal what I will. Flaming me will get you nowhere, and does not change my opinion that there is little true value in their service that cannot be gotten by free means otherwise.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by intermodal · 2003-02-14 08:09 · Score: 1

no, in one of my other posts i made a statement that this they are intentionally painting the whole land with, without one specific target. If a cell phone happens to have to beam something through my land to get to a tower, it is different simply because it is specifically sent to one target (despite it being sent to a radial area, the objective of this connection is one tower rather than many who subscribe). Cell phones, like email, are a targeted transmission which are intended for a single recipient. it is the difference between broadcasting constantly and sending a single transmission for a rather limited amount of time.

so to put this in analogous terms, i would allow someone to cut across the lawn of my corner lot, but i wouldn't allow them to pitch their tent there and only do anything for me if i paid them to.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by eunos94 · 2003-02-14 08:13 · Score: 1

Let me setup a scenario for you then. If a river that feeds water to a major city, the only method of getting fresh water to the city, crosses your property, do you have the right to reroute all of the water to another area away from the city?

According to your model of property rights, any 'thing' that is on your property, you control all of it. It seems this would be a very short sighted view of propety rights.

Additionally, what if there was a oil deposit on your land that spanned across to another tract of land. Let's say you start to drill for oil, but a large company comes in a drill faster on the adjoining land. They then extract all of the oil before you can drill. According to your model, they are in the right, because they only took the oil that was on their property, they can't help it if the oil just keep filling in underneath their pumps.

I would think such a limited view of property rights might be nice to believe in but it would be completely impractical.
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by eunos94 · 2003-02-14 08:17 · Score: 1

How is a cell phone user not a subscriber? They pay for the service of receiving phone calls. If the tower blanket transmits to a cell phone users, it is broadcasting in all directions, but only the single paying subscriber can use that signal. It is exactly the same issue.
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by eunos94 · 2003-02-14 08:19 · Score: 1

I doubt any of us are trying to change your opinion, we are just making sure that people with immature concepts of property rights aren't the only ones speaking.
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by intermodal · 2003-02-14 08:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

two problems with that:

1) yes, that is my model of property rights.

2) it relies on people not being assholes about limited resources. Very much like communism, it looks great on paper but lousy in reality, and therefore would require some sort of laws in regard to it.

3) satellite transmissions are not a limited resource. DirecTV would lose nothing save for a subscription i would not have bought anyway should I choose to utilize it.

So to sum it up, limited resources, particularly those of a natural persuasion, do need some sort of rules governing their diversion or dispensation. Signals are a human construct which are presently being exploited under law with no real benefit of prohibiting their use by the citizenry without paying said corporation, especially in areas where the service is not sold.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by eunos94 · 2003-02-14 08:30 · Score: 1

Satellite transmission are a limited resource. They cost money to produce. Without being reimbursed for their service, the company would go out of business and then there is no service at all. You don't seem to find anything wrong with that, and that's fine, but I don't think having laws that are prohibitive of any kinds of services like these are logical. Sure, they meet some bizarre communist ideals, but the reality is that someone has to pay for the production, it can either be those that value the service and then purchase it, or we can just tax everyone for everything, whether they use it or not.
Re:You are all making a stupid argument by intermodal · 2003-02-14 08:30 · Score: 1

no it isn't. the difference between a beacon type transmission for the cell phone to find the tower and a blanket satellite transimission is that i can use the beacon to find the tower all i want without being a subscriber. These serve telephone numbers, which are a limited resource, and are two-way one-on-one devices. Digital television transmissions are not a limited resource, and are broadcast in a manner that they can be equally utilized by anyone who recieves them with the proper equipment without harming anybody else. I know you are going to try to say it hurts the service, which is not necessarily true. if the service is not available in the area, for example, but they still paint your land with their signal, obviously they lose nothing from you using that one way signal.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:I guess I'm just an old fashioned anarchist, th by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 06:59 · Score: 0

ok, I call BS. There's a ceiling on your airspace, but you must have some. Otherwise, you could park a hot-air balloon over someone's house and watch them while they sleep.

Okay, then by Old+Uncle+Bill · 2003-02-14 07:11 · Score: 0, Informative

So this is the country we live in. Above all else, it should scare the crap out of us that a US district attorney was not smart enough to figure this one out:

The satellite TV industry and the Motion Picture Association of America lose millions of dollars from piracy, he noted.

How the f*** does the MPAA and the satellite industry "lose" money? Is it falling out of their pockets? Are these pirates stealing it from the bank? This suggests two things, that the interception of these signals costs them money. What, do they have to boost their signals more because more people are receiving them? WTF? So we are assuming that all of these people illegally intercepting these signals would be paying a monthly fee for their service if they were not hacking? Please, I don't think so. I don't hack directv, but the people I know who do wouldn't give them a dime. Ever. So how are they "losing" money again?

--
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

What the hell was I thinking yesterday by filmsmith · 2003-02-14 07:13 · Score: 1

I punched the sht out of some poor schmuck because I THOUGHT he was going to kill me. Seems he had a gun in his hand (it was loaded, by the way) and it was aimed right at my face with his finger on the trigger. Hell, I should have waited to see if he actually fired BEFORE assuming his guilt.

Come to think of it, I might have been a little harsh on his pal, too. I kicked him several times in the neck because he was holding a big bomb with a lighter. Sure, one can ASSUME he might be behaving legitmately as easily as one could assume he might actually blow up that school bus full of children. There's really no way to know until that bad-boy Kablooeys all over the place

Use your damn head, people! It's called Probable Cause for a reason

And for those who don't know...Probable Cause Noun: Reasonable grounds for belief that an accused person may be subject to arrest or the issuance of a warrant.

Re:What the hell was I thinking yesterday by fishbowl · 2003-02-14 09:54 · Score: 2, Informative

You are confusing "Probable Cause" with "Clear and Present Danger".

Unless you are a peace officer, you don't need to establish probable cause in the sense that you described it. If you can persuade a judge/grand jury/cop that there was a clear and present danger to your life and limb, then you stand a good chance of not having to stand trial for assault, but it is not a guarantee!

Unless you were in a position to make an arrest or issue a warrant, "Probable Cause" is irrelevant. You, as a private citizen, don't need ANY cause to be suspicious. On the other hand, police are supposed to have a specific reason for any suspicion they raise against an individual. Trying to light a bomb, or holding a gun to someone's head are dramatic examples, but decent.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:What the hell was I thinking yesterday by filmsmith · 2003-02-14 10:07 · Score: 1

Thank you for clarifying that for me, but I meant to imply that those who are doing the arresting (and keeping me from taking control of such dire situations) need not wait for the incident to occur before acting upon it as some in this thread would like to have us believe.
Re:What the hell was I thinking yesterday by rcw-home · 2003-02-14 13:25 · Score: 1

Seems he had a gun in his hand (it was loaded, by the way) and it was aimed right at my face with his finger on the trigger. Hell, I should have waited to see if he actually fired BEFORE assuming his guilt.
Bad example. Assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder do not require a bullet to leave the chamber.

Re:I guess I'm just an old fashioned anarchist, th by Tri0de · 2003-02-14 07:22 · Score: 1

OK, then change it to "if they are sending satellite transmissions ONTO my property.."

same damn difference, if you are broadcasting it and the waves hit my friggin' property then don't bitch about what I do with it.

--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Same here by filmsmith · 2003-02-14 07:24 · Score: 1

if you are on the internet, then id say your chances of being out of range of any kind of cable provider are slim to none.

My apartment building is so old that coaxial isn't dropped into any of the buildings. They do, however, have sattelite dishes that we can use to get a signal. This, despite the fact that I'm damn close to the dead center of Phoenix. Oh, and I also have a dial-up at home.

Re:Same here by tommck · 2003-02-14 08:34 · Score: 1

I take it you mean Phoenix, AZ... Coincidentally, the town I live in is also called Phoenix, just not in AZ :-)
T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.

You've got it all wrong! by docbrown42 · 2003-02-14 07:43 · Score: 1

They weren't hacking into satalites to get free pay-per-view movies...they were waging war against SkyNet's grandparents!

--
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net

Re:Not the same... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:07 · Score: 0

...but if the US offers satellite photos of stuff leaving before UN inspectors come, it could be said that the US should be able to say, "they are lying to our faces, and here's the proof".

These poor guys by anthony_dipierro · 2003-02-14 08:08 · Score: 1

All they were doing was trying to allow paying subscribers to decrypt satellite signals using linux.

HA! by spammeister · 2003-02-14 08:12 · Score: 1

I say, and HA! again...You have to live in Canada to truly appreciate crap getting shoved down your thoat! And I do watch DTV and I hope the hacking never end cuz nobody tells me what to watch and when to watch it!

--
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.

simple, it isn't legal to descramble cable by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:13 · Score: 0

That is stealing cable.

You can buyt a descrambler sometimes under the theory that if you are paying the cable company you can descramble the channels legitimately if you are already paying for them. You just will be using different equipment than the cable company recommended.

Arr by stinky+wizzleteats · 2003-02-14 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

The satellite TV industry and the Motion Picture Association of America lose millions of dollars from piracy, he noted.

Thank God they stopped these scoundrels. Who can say how many children went hungry because these miscreants gathered radio waves instead of letting them hit the ground.

Shouldn't be DMCA by Unregistered · 2003-02-14 08:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

While the accused are probobly guilty of breaking copyright law, i don't see why the DMCA is involved. Shouldn't they just be prosecuted under normal copyright law.

warrants and the courts and "entertainments" by zogger · 2003-02-14 09:20 · Score: 1

PLEASE (anyoe reading this, this is generic commentary)do some more research on homeland security, patriot act 1, patriot act 2, model states health emergency act, and recent FCC rulings. The saying the supreme court has ruled "they need a warrant" is terribly simplified and in fact now is as useless as screen doors on a submarine. Really. It's beyond a joke. This is very complex, laws they have now and are proposed in the house and senate and stand a good chance of passing completely gut most of the "bill of rights".

here's one of the latest FCC rulings, just for surveillance:

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAEAR1B5CD.html

Federal Regulators Ease Restrictions on Technology That Can See Through Walls
By David Ho Associated Press Writer
Published: Feb 13, 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) - Technology that can see through walls to help police track criminals and aid firefighters searching for victims received a boost from federal regulators Thursday.

Responding to industry requests, the Federal Communications Commission tweaked restrictions on ultra-wideband technology, which sends millions of narrow pulses each second over airwaves to get a precise reading of an object's location and distance. The signals also can carry huge amounts of data over a short distance.

The technology has many potential uses, from wireless home networks of computers and other appliances to collision-avoidance systems in cars. Ground penetrating radar systems using ultra-wideband can detect objects or people buried under earth or debris.

"While I hope we have no reason to ever use ultra-wideband to assist search-and-rescue teams in a disaster, I'll be glad that we have this tool available should the need arise," said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps.

The FCC established rules a year ago permitting the marketing and operation of ultra-wideband products. The latest rule changes will allow manufacturers to design devices that gather clearer images, said Edmond Thomas, chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology.

The agency is still studying the new technology to ensure it doesn't interfere with other broadcasts.

The FCC announced the rule changes at a demonstration of ultra-wideband devices at the agency's headquarters.

Several companies showed off ground-penetrating radar devices that resemble heavy-duty lawnmowers with flat computer screens mounted on their handles. The devices can locate utility pipes and lines underground or in concrete.

Time Domain Corp., based in Huntsville, Ala., demonstrated a "through-wall motion detector," a briefcase-sized, 10-pound device that can be held up to a wall. A person moving behind the wall shows up as a colorful blob on a small display. The detector is intended for use by law enforcement, firefighters and the military.

---

On the Net:

Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov

--they have better quality tech than this, and are using it now, without warrants or with blanket regional warrants which are illegal for anyone in government to reveal the existence of, from helicopters, and are mapping various urban and rural areas, including mapping inside your home. Like I said this is complex, I am not a professional IT guy but I spend hours every day researching subjects such as this, and I can assure you, this "warrant" stuff is about almost completely obsolete when it comes to "practically speaking".

The DMCA conversations here pale in comparison to some of the much more important issues that are happening and should be discussed. I actually have little use for looking at such low level arguments when the whole she-bang is about to poof into total fascism. I recognize for a lot of geekdom that "entertainments" are very important, as well as software and hardware modding, but any "restrictions" are the tip of reality iceberg. Understand my response isn't entirely directed towards this response or even the parent, just seemed a good place to put it, saw no other good thread for it.

IMO, on a scale of 1 to 10, these constant threads on "entertainments" and hacking to get more free "entertainment" are at scale of a 10, with 1 being "important stuff". I hope anyone reading this will google for info on the above named acts, actually download them and read them, tedious as hell, and just as scary when you read the fine print and understand this is guys with guns and badges are being ordered to take this seriously.

Anyone can have any interest they want, I just find it sad that "entertainment" related threads and topics can garner so much enthusiasm and outrage for the slightest "infraction of my right to be entertained".

HUGE difference... by sterno · 2003-02-14 09:33 · Score: 1

Wrong, there's a big difference here. Dmitri, etc, are not criminals because they were offering tools to decrypt paid for copies so that they could be used for legitimate fair use purposes. It had the side-effect that it could be used to avoid payment in the first place so that was not the clear primary purpose. In this case, I can pay a satellite company money, and get a box that will totally decrypt the signal which I can do what I want with. I don't need decryption gear unless I'm planning to not pay for the program.

--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service

Re:Not the same... by renehollan · 2003-02-14 09:38 · Score: 1

...but if the US offers satellite photos of stuff leaving before UN inspectors come, it could be said that the US should be able to say, "they are lying to our faces, and here's the proof".

Yes, of course. But so far, it does not appear that they have made a convincing case for this to the U.N. Security Council. While France and Germany are threatening to veto any new resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq, pending "proof", I do not get the impression that they exactly like Iraq, and are acting impartially.

--
You could've hired me.

flawed logic by Str8Dog · 2003-02-14 09:39 · Score: 1

If you steal a jet, you deprive the owner of the jet. If you do not live in an area DirecTV will service (such as the entire country of Canada) and you intercept their signal, you do not deprive them of anything.

--

Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public

Some Informational Sites by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:02 · Score: 0

Here are a few of the main sites that discuss the hacking of DirecTV signal.

Pirate's Den

Hackp4

Post on the Den from one of the guys that got busted.

Newb Guide

Re: Bad analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:06 · Score: 0

Zathrus wrote:
>
> Now if you go turn that meter on, are you
> just "using the emissions already on your
> property" or are you illegally using service?

This is a bad analogy. Because by turning that meter back on and using the electricity the Electric Company now has less electricity to sell to their other customers.

This is the difference between theft, and the absolutely harmless action that the corporations have made in to a crime.

When you decrypt sattelite transmitions you are not depriving the sattelite television companies of anything. Thus it is not theft. Therefore it should not be criminal.

If, after decrypting sattelite transmitions you were depriving someone else of these very same transmitions (if it were like electricity), then they'd have a point. But they don't. And neither do you.

Re:Not the same... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:14 · Score: 0

When you start talking war, it is perceived differently by a person in Europe than by one in America. During the "World" wars of Europe, the American experience was generally that of "sending troops off" to a foreign war. But the European experience was quite different: the war was not "Foreign".

Also, the US has come to the expectation that superior technology guarantees a quick, clean victory against any opposition. In other words, it does not appear that the US forces will go to the Persian Gulf and get their asses kicked. The logical scenario does not even suggest that is possible. But what really happens when the US forces launch an invasion against Iraq? Does Iraq fight back? Or does Iraq attack someone else? We bomb Bagdad, does Saddam rely on his AA guns that were designed to shoot down WWII planes? Or does he respond by ordering the execution of a Kurdish village, or by sending Scud missiles into Lebanon?

I believe Americans regard fighting Iraq in terms of the direct consequences -- US forces strong, superior firepower wins, Iraq doesn't fight back because they have 19th century tactics and WWI ordnance. They don't see the big picture of destabilizing the region, and what happens when that instability starts to really have an effect as far as Turkey or north Africa.

It's a long way to Algeria or Istanbul from Washington DC., but it's a lot closer to either of those places from Versailles or Bonn., and if a "real" war breaks out, we won't be talking about Iraq anymore.

Is this the same DMCA that Clinton signed? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:19 · Score: 0

You know, that guy who was President for 8 years and gave us peace in the Middle East and a North Korea without nukes.

Re:More stupidity by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:22 · Score: 0

Zathrus wrote:
>
> You most certainly cannot receive and decode
> any transmission you wish. Doing so to
> cellular telephones is illegal, as are
> military channels. Beamed sat transmission
> isn't either one of these, obviously, but
> there's precedent against "don't broadcast
> into my house!".

Precedents they may be, but they're just as unfair, for the exact same reasons. The HAM (Amateur Radio) communities were outraged when recieving cellular transmitions was made illegal. (You'll recall some Congressman was caught making clear how much of a sleazebag he was on a cell phone, and other Congressmen probably didn't want to face the similar embarrasement so they passed the cell-phone laws right quick) So just as there are legal precedents to this case, there are precedents of community outrage at unfair legislation being passed thanks to the $$$$$$$ of big corporations and corrupt politicians.

> The Supreme Court ruled against police using
> passive detection methods such as heat
> radiation without a search warrant. By your
> logic, they should have been able to - since
> if you didn't want them to use such a method
> you should've prevented the heat from
> irradiating out from your walls.

You'll note that the US Consitution says "We the people", NOT "We the corporations", or "We the government". The _people's_ right to be free from warrantless search and siezure is guaranteed by the constitution. No such rights exist for corporations or the government. In fact, we must insist in the strongest terms that they be made more transparent, not less, as the recent spate of despicable Homeland Security legislation is making them.

See http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection.shtm l for more information on the injustices foistered on Americans by corporations.

Re:rights by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:40 · Score: 0

osgeek wrote:
>
> Why should we ditch the wonderful benefits of
> satellite dish reception of various types of
> signals because a few people feel they have
> the misguided right to everything in the
> universe that's within their reach.

People do have a right to everything within their reach, as long as taking those things harms no one else, or deprives anyone else of that very same thing.

By looking at DirectTV broadcasts I am not inhibiting your ability to look at the same broadcast, nor am I depriving DirectTV of their content (they still have it in their offices or vaults, or wherever they keep it). I am just looking, and just looking should not be a crime, as it hurts absolutely no one.

Now, DirectTV may claim that they have a right to profit from their actions. But, first of all, corporations do not have rights (only people do) despite misguided legislation to this effect. Second, no one, not even a person, has a right to a profit. They are welcome to try to make a profit, but if they can't it's tough shit, and no ammount of legislation should be able to get their grubby paws in to my pocket if I've taken nothing from them, or punish others for the corporation's lack of business or technical acumen.

Kudos by penguin_punk · 2003-02-14 10:57 · Score: 1

Agreed. If you are directing signals at my head then telling me to pay $uch and $uch per month, FUCK YOU! I can either do that, (for ease of use, additional benefits, etc) or I can make my own equipment (or use my buddies) and decode it inside my house. If I paid shipping for a card that allows me to decode these signals beaming to my house from above, then who's to stop me? If some guy sends me a card and software to 'test', then what are you going to do to him? ARGHHHH... end rant

ok. I've bene busted for stealing cable a few times. My point was this: "$40/mth and 200 houses on my street? I don't think they'll care" Well, it worked fine, for three years after that fateful night of crawling up the pole, we had cable. Free cable. a couple of months ago, when the people downstairs bought cable to get pay-per-view (we were feeding them free cable) all hell broke loose. I came home to a stack of cable service brochures. $80/mth for this, $50/mth for that, Bull Shit. Now they wanted me to pay for something I had for free the last couple of years.

Long RANTING story short, I kept splicing the cable line going downstairs and removing the splitter 'blocker', but every three days they'd come by and check the line. Before getting the cops invoved, my roomies actually bought cable. Moral of the story? I was fuckign with their lines. On the poles. I'll be the first to admit that its a crime (and yes, when I move, I WILL do it again) ubt decoding cable signals that are beaming into my house from sattelites? c'mon, give me a break. I don't care how many people they were distributing the hard/software to.

I need a beer. I doubt any of that made sense.

--
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development

Agreed, but McDonald's coffee *was* too hot! by aquarian · 2003-02-14 11:24 · Score: 1

The McDonald's case is always held up as an example of abuse of the courts, a miscarriage of justice, whatever. But I happen to think their coffee *was* too damned hot, and that they *were* negligent in serving it that way.

Good coffee should never hit boiling temperature anyway.

Re:Not the same... by renehollan · 2003-02-14 11:36 · Score: 1

It's a long way to Algeria or Istanbul from Washington DC., but it's a lot closer to either of those places from Versailles or Bonn., and if a "real" war breaks out, we won't be talking about Iraq anymore.

Flak falling a little close to your back yard, is it?

Sorry to be flip -- I certainly see your point. The question is how strongly does the relative proximity of Europe to the Middle East compared to the U.S.A. and the good point you raise affect the positions of France and Germany in the face of damning evidence (which has, as of yet, not been presented).

If damning evidence of Iraq's violations were to be produced, I doubt that France and Germany could continue to protest a resolution authorizing a U.S. attack -- that kind of "ass covering" would be a bit too obvious under those circumstances: they'd either anger Iraq by not vetoing the resolution, or anger the U.S., which would be hell bent on proceeding anyway.

I can imagine the U.S. taking the following position: "Support the resolution and we will defend your interests against growing instability when we attack anyway, or we won't help defend your interests due to instability when we attack anyway. But, we will attack.... anyway."

Shitty position to be in: disagree and we won't help you... agree and we might help you.

Sucks to not be the U.S. these days, in terms of military muscle, but, as Lord Elrond might put it, their "... list of allies grows thin."

--
You could've hired me.

Not stealing! by alexo · 2003-02-14 11:37 · Score: 1

osgeek: It's still stealing.
The Wing Lover: Oh, I never said it wasn't. I just don't feel bad about it.

Confusing theft with copyright violation seems to be trendy.

One possible explanations is that everybody knows that stealing is wrong but some copyright violations are not so clear-cut.
So people use the incorrect but more emotionally charged label to invoke the desired response.

In this case, I suggest calling it "Terrorism" instead. More in the spirit of the 21st century.

A Few Legal Points... by shylock0 · 2003-02-14 11:45 · Score: 1

Seems to me that there are a few relevant legal points here (even if we don't agree with them, they're still part of the law):

1) The US Constitution lets Congress extend copyrights to authors, and authors in turn can choose whomever they want to manage that copyright. Regardless of some alternative theories, copyrights are generally a good thing. They help authors, artists, and producers get paid for their hard work. Like most good things, however, they can most certainly be abused.

2) A digital signal, encrypted or not, is certainly a created work and thus can be copyrighted. Thus it's possible to copyright any unique string of 1s and 0s.

3) So now we've got a string of 1s and 0s, our encrypted signal. So decrypting that signal is creating a "derivative work," something which has been covered under copyright law for about as long as the concept has existed. It's the same concept which protects authors when thier books are translated into English, French, Russian, Klingon and Sanskrit.

4) So these guys are selling hardware with the express purpose of its being used to sell unlicensed derivative works. Sounds fairly illegal to me. No DMCA really necessary, though it certainly clarifies things.

As for all the people who write about how the signals are their "property" because they fall on their lawn, or roof or somesuch. That's a nonsensical legal argument. By that token, it would be legal for you to decrypt and listen in on your neighbors encrypted (or not encrypted) cell phone. Or for me to park outside your house, on public property, and crack your WEP 128 to steal your credit card numbers, or other personal information.

--
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.

Re:A Few Legal Points... by Ziviyr · 2003-02-14 16:11 · Score: 1

I'm not duwb enough to have a cellphone or use wireless networking.

If someone is pumping me full of cancer waves I should have the right to know why! :-)

--

Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!

Proviving They Had Good Intentions? by QuoteMstr · 2003-02-14 11:45 · Score: 1

That last sentence struck me oddly. I couldn't figure out why for a few seconds, but then I realized that we have a system of innocent until proven guilty built into our law code. Why should these people have to prove that they had good intentions instead of the plaintiff proving that they had malicious ones?

Maybe this is why they're trying so hard: by AgentTim3 · 2003-02-14 12:14 · Score: 1

Consider this: DTV is really really aggressively chasing down hackers, which is causing them a lot of bad press, fueling arguments such as this, etc. It really can't make that much difference to their bottom line that a small percentage of people are doing this. I mean, those $500 million numbers are totally made up. Why are they pushing so hard? What are they afraid of? Well, here's an idea:

Is DTV liable for a countersuit uner the DMCA?

Consider this, (1) the existence of hackers proves that DTV encryption technology is breakable and that this knowledge is in the public domain.

(2) DTV, aware of this fact, continues to broadcast their signal to every single person in the US.

Essentially this means that they are knowingly distributing copyrighted works (movies) and other TV programs for free to the entire country. Gosh, that sounds a lot like what Napster was doing. I wonder if that's something they could get in trouble for...? :)

Throw the book at them by geekee · 2003-02-14 13:33 · Score: 1

These people create this software for one reason; To allow people to steal copyrighted material. They didn't keep it to themselves, but instead chose to broadcast the info to others. This makes them an accessory to a crime in that they knowingly provided assistance to people committing crimes. This is what the DMCA was supposed to be able to do. Unfortunately, the DMCA turned into a overly broad piece of legislation that lumps those who crack encryption schemes for purposes other than violating copyright in with these criminals. I hope they are found guilty, but I also hope that cases like Skylarov show that the law is overly broad, and that intent in circumventing copyright for non fair-use purposes must be proven as well. As an analogy, it's not illegal to hand someone a crowbar. However, if you're standing next to the guy in front of a jewelry store and hand him a crowbar knowing he's going to use it to break the window, then you are an accessory to the crime.

--
Vote for Pedro

THANK YOU. by mindstrm · 2003-02-14 13:39 · Score: 1

Thank you very much.
To put it another way
To claim theft of service implies a service is being offered. It would be illegal for them ot offer such a service. Hence, no theft.

waves of trespassing by khold · 2003-02-14 15:38 · Score: 1

I guess I have to agree with the people that say that we should have the right to do whatever we want with waves that pass through our backyard. The only problem with that logic is that by the same standard, it is ok to modify a scanner to listen to people's cell phone conversations.

--
rm -rf sig

President Clinton had nothing to do with the DMCA by yerricde · 2003-02-14 16:30 · Score: 1

Both the DMCA and the Bono Act were passed by a "voice vote" aka "unanimous consent" in both houses. Because the U.S. Constitution lets 20 percent of a house force a roll-call vote, this means that both bills had at least 80.1 percent support in both houses, which is well over the 66.7 percent needed to override a presidential veto. Therefore, had President Clinton vetoed the DMCA and the Bono Act, he still could not have stopped them from becoming law.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

So if I leave my car running.... by raehl · 2003-02-14 18:49 · Score: 1

While I run into the liquor store to grab a 6-pack, is it not stealing if you drive off in it?

--
paintball

The parent AC post is insightful -- please MOD UP by Morgaine · 2003-02-14 19:24 · Score: 1

I wish I hadn't spent my mod points.

The fact that the law and government and big business don't want it to work that way is perhaps a good pointer to the fact that such a view is just.

--
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra

the whole enchilada - was Re: please MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 20:18 · Score: 0

If you liked what I had to say here you might find my other posts on the matter interesting:

1, 2, 3

I'm combining them below, for your convenience:

-----

Zathrus wrote:
>
> Now if you go turn that meter on, are you
> just "using the emissions already on your
> property" or are you illegally using service?

This is a bad analogy. Because by turning that meter back on and using the electricity the Electric Company now has less electricity to sell to their other customers.

This is the difference between theft, and the absolutely harmless action that the corporations have made in to a crime.

When you decrypt sattelite transmitions you are not depriving the sattelite television companies of anything. Thus it is not theft. Therefore it should not be criminal.

If, after decrypting sattelite transmitions you were depriving someone else of these very same transmitions (if it were like electricity), then they'd have a point. But they don't. And neither do you.

> You most certainly cannot receive and decode
> any transmission you wish. Doing so to
> cellular telephones is illegal, as are
> military channels. Beamed sat transmission
> isn't either one of these, obviously, but
> there's precedent against "don't broadcast
> into my house!".

Precedents they may be, but they're just as unfair, for the exact same reasons. The HAM (Amateur Radio) communities were outraged when recieving cellular transmitions was made illegal. (You'll recall some Congressman was caught making clear how much of a sleazebag he was on a cell phone, and other Congressmen probably didn't want to face the similar embarrasement so they passed the cell-phone laws right quick) So just as there are legal precedents to this case, there are precedents of community outrage at unfair legislation being passed thanks to the $$$$$$$ of big corporations and corrupt politicians.

> The Supreme Court ruled against police using
> passive detection methods such as heat
> radiation without a search warrant. By your
> logic, they should have been able to - since
> if you didn't want them to use such a method
> you should've prevented the heat from
> irradiating out from your walls.

You'll note that the US Consitution says "We the people", NOT "We the corporations", or "We the government". The _people's_ right to be free from warrantless search and siezure is guaranteed by the constitution. No such rights exist for corporations or the government. In fact, we must insist in the strongest terms that they be made more transparent, not less, as the recent spate of despicable Homeland Security legislation is making them.

See Unequal Protection l for more information on the injustices foistered on Americans by corporations.

osgeek wrote:
> > Why should people go to jail if they help
> > me decrypt the information?
>
> Because it's not their content either...
> It's still stealing.

No it's not. Not in the least. In order for theft to occur the person who's property is getting stolen has to be deprived of it. If you have a horse and I steal it, you can't ride the horse any longer.

This is not the case with digital information. When someone makes a copy of it or views it the owner of that information still has the information. They still have the horse, as it were. They are deprived of nothing but a profit, which they are not entitled to anyway.

> Why should we ditch the wonderful benefits of
> satellite dish reception of various types of
> signals because a few people feel they have
> the misguided right to everything in the
> universe that's within their reach.

People do have a right to everything within their reach, as long as taking those things harms no one else, or deprives anyone else of that very same thing.

By looking at DirectTV broadcasts I am not inhibiting your ability to look at the same broadcast, nor am I depriving DirectTV of their content (they still have it in their offices or vaults, or wherever they keep it). I am just looking, and just looking should not be a crime, as it hurts absolutely no one.

Now, DirectTV may claim that they have a right to profit from their actions. But, first of all, corporations do not have rights (only people do) despite misguided legislation to this effect. Second, no one, not even a person, has a right to a profit. They are welcome to try to make a profit, but if they can't it's tough shit, and no ammount of legislation should be able to get their grubby paws in to my pocket if I've taken nothing from them, or punish others for the corporation's lack of business or technical acumen.

our atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 22:40 · Score: 0

if any party is pumping microwave radiation through our atmosphere we should be able to do what ever we want with it.

Re:I guess I'm just an old fashioned anarchist, th by mpe · 2003-02-15 00:52 · Score: 1

You own the property, not the air above it.

IIRC up to a few hundred feet the air is your airspace.

Planes may fly over your house. Satellite transmissions do not go 'through' anything. You can block em with a sheet of newspaper.

A satellite reciever is either part of your property or attached to someone elses private property with their permission.

McDonald's knowingly broke the law. by cat_jesus · 2003-02-15 03:05 · Score: 1

I'm sorry but the law requires that food served in a restaurant be edible. Coffee that can cause third degree burns is not edible. Furthermore, McDonalds knew their coffee was too hot but the bean counters decided that a handful of scarred people was OK. The huge amount of the damages were not what was being sought, the old lady just needed to pay for her skin grafts. The reason the jury gave such a huge award was because they felt McDonald's was not getting the message and that they simply didn't care that people needed skin grafts because of their coffee.

If your food can make your skin peel off, it's not food.

Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-17 08:44 · Score: 0

Okay, now we'll talk about a hacked satellite dish box. Such boxes do NOT have substantial non-infringing uses.

They have exactly as much "non-infringing use" as, say, a photocopier.

I can use a photocopier to copy a few pages from this book -- fair use. Or I could copy all of Tom Clancy's latest novel and give copies of it to my friends -- copyright violation, right?

Getting video off a satellite feed looks like the same thing to me. You can use it to get a few seconds of clips to use under fair-use, or you can download entire movies for redistribution and use it to do illegal things.

(Of course, I don't know exactly what they were doing. They probably were just using it just to get free service without paying, which is illegal. But I don't think hacking my satellite TV box to do video-capture of a small clip to be used under fair-use is necessarily criminal.)

MOD PARENT DOWN!!! -1, Offtopic. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-17 12:10 · Score: 0

From the bottom of the post form:

"Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts [b]on topic[/b]."

Slashdot Mirror

Satellite Hackers Charged Under DMCA

378 comments