Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Hackers Charged Under DMCA
RexHavoc writes "'Invoking the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal grand jury has indicted six people on charges of developing software and hardware designed to hack into paid TV satellite transmissions.' My guess is that for those who haven't already plead guilty, they will have a tough time proving that they had good intentions, unlike Dmitry Sklyarov's e-books case."
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
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."
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.
"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.
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
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).
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
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.
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).
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?
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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...
"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.