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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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........
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!