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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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?

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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

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 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...

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.

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

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 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

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 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 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

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.)

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.

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

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: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 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.

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.

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!

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.

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: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.

Slashdot Mirror

Satellite Hackers Charged Under DMCA

65 of 378 comments (clear)