Slashdot Mirror
DirecTV takes on PirateDen.com
IgD writes "Pirate's Den is a DirecTV hacking website based in Canada. The site features a very busy chat forum where 'hobbyists' research and discuss ways of hacking satellite TV. The site makes money by selling advertisements and subscriptions to the chat forum. The owner claims all he is engaging in is free speech. He does not appear to directly market circumvention devices. DirectTV doesn't agree however. They apparently are demanding the owner close the site, transfer the domain and pay a settlement fee. Another interesting twist to all this is the fact that DirecTV is not legally able to market its services in Canada. You can read more about this legal battle at FreedomFight.ca."
So the game is afoot. I love it. Necessity breeds innovation, so it'll be fun to watch how Pirateden responds. Lets get it on!
3-Server OC-3 Linux Counter-Strike Cluster
www.rnp.ca
Then they can miror the site and let unsuspecting people continute to use the site.
Then they'll sue verizon to tell them who they are.. ad nauseam
Actually, it's not illegal to hack American satellite TV in Canada, while it IS illegal to pay for it.
So even if police monitor the site, they've got nothing to worry about. In fact, the entire site deals with how one can better obey Canadian law.
I love Canada. I plan to move there in a few years.
It was Carthage, IIRC, not Capua, that was the victim of the original salting of the earth, which does ruin the soil to a certain extent (although it can be later rejuvenated, with a great deal of effort)
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
but in past cases where domain had to be transferred, was it not because the domain name itself violate someone's IP rights, i.e. registering VinceCarter.com or WarrenSapp.com and trying to make the individual/company/entity/whatever pay exhorbitant fees for the domain. I know the federal government can and does do this (force domain transfers in certain cases), but since when did owning the rights to a product give a company the same rights as law enforcement... yeah yeah yeah, I know, RIAA.. blah blah blah.. also.. Im looking at this [cira.ca rules for registering .ca domain names] and fail to see how Directnic can legally take over the domain anyway.... I could see how they could have a case for having the site shut down, but not much more... but then again I A N A L
...to have a location like a convention center or something where people can talk about whatever they like or specfically hacking? No.
Would it be illegal for this convention to charge an enterance fee? No.
Would it be illegal for the convention to charge companies a fee to advertise on it's walls? No.
Can an American company tell a Canadian convention center what it can or can not do? No.
The question then remains; does it matter weather this locations is physical?
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
"The site itself is a circumvention device."
I really don't understand this mode of thinking. It seems to me that a website operator that provides an open forum for discussion should be no more at fault for the content of patron conversation than a restaurant owner should when people sit and chat there.
Besides there is a fairly descriptive disclaimer on the front page that specifically says the site is for people who live in countries where such information isn't illegal. No company should have a right to extend their arm of influence beyond the laws and regulations of the countries where they provide service.
To put it in perspective imagine if some country had a specific ban on sports of any type so people from that country demanded that all sports web sites shut down and turn their domains over to them.
"No, information itself cannot be owned or a device for anything."
Information most certainly can be owned. in fact it is often the most valuable thing to own. Just ask Gordon Gecko.
Furthermore, it seems we differ on the most basic principles here. Sure the data being exchanged is harmless until implemented. The data is not the device. The forum is the device, a communication device built and marketted solely for the dissemination of data. In this case, it is also the vehicle for conspiracy to commit unauthorized communications interception and descrambling.
The data being exchanged isn't itself the problem- rather, it is the intent of the forum that is the problem. words like collusion and conspiracy imediately spring to mind, and for a good reason: that's what is happening at this site.
To simplify matters, just replace 'signal' with 'credit card number'. Do things start to become clear now?
I don't know what you're smoking, and IANAL, but Canada isn't like America when it comes to stuff like this.
If you look at the argument that DirecTV is trying to use to threaten the site, it doesn't have a leg to stand on (with respect to shutting down the site), even if the owner of the site himself has a Dish stealing signal (very likely). They can stop him from using a dish, but not hosting a discussion board.
Broadcasting this information, or talking about it isn't illegal. Otherwise news organizations wouldn't be able to talk about how a criminal may have, say committed a clever home invasion... that would be aiding and abetting some "potential" criminal who is consuming the news to steal ideas.
If they were smart, they would have just complained to the ISP to shut down the site. Many ISPs don't allow these types of discussion boards in their terms of service.
DirecTV is talking about applying some criminal laws in Canada that to those stealing signal. I don't think that DirecTV can get much from a civil case standpoint (unlike the US, I have yet to see a civil case to extract further penalty than the criminal punishments -- heck, OJ was found not guilty but still liable in civil court... why even bother having a criminal system?) DirecTV can't find any civil claim, since it's already illegal for Canadians to PAY them for programming. Hence, no lost revenues. Arguably, DirecTV can't really claim any psychological damage either (hehe), unless they can provide doctors' bills.
DirecTV does have a leg on identifying the so-called "anonymous" users and chasing them down one by one and getting them tossed in jail (unlikely) or having them fined heavily by the Canadian government (hehe, and none of this money would go to DirecTV, and I don't believe that DirecTV would be able recover any of their legal costs, which would be substantial). I think it's pretty unlikely for the Canadian government to want to spend money chasing down pirates of an American company that isn't really allowed to sell in Canada in the first place.
Ultimately, the crime of stealing the signal is very different from the intellectual masturbation of discussing how to steal it.
I think I have every "right" to intercept any transmission that passes through my property. I also have a moral obligation to not use that information for malicious purposes. eg. I hear cops talking about a drug bust that's going down at 1125 Main St at 4pm. Do I call the perps and tell them to get out? No.
Now, television signals? Who gives a shit? Does it make ANY difference to ANYONE but me if I watch or don't watch that movie on HBO? Especially since I can't legally pay for it anyways. Nobody is deprived of anything in this situation.
Because the original poster is too ignorant to realise that there is a difference between intercepting a signal and actual theft. It's like the difference between copyright violation and actual theft.
You're trying to preach an ethereal morality to a crowd that can apply logic to a situation and determine their own course of action.
Just because you believe something is wrong, doesn't make it so. It is merely your opinion.
Perhaps they feel that "priacy" is a legitimate activity?
The historical pirates usually operated under government sanction.
Google for "Letter of Marque", you might be surprised at what you find.
Words can change meaning quickly, leading to lots of problems like this.
Consider the term "hacker".
Many continue to use the term in it's old meaning, and get ostracized for it.
The ability to define a term is arguably the most fundamental "speech" any of us has.
Implying that a group doesn't have the right to use whatever terms it likes is double plus ungood.
-- this is not a
So I fail to see the reason that DirecTV is so upset about information boards as in the topic.
If their new cards are so secure, just swap them out, invalidate the old ones and move on.
If on the other hand the cards aren't quite as secure as you think they are, perhaps they DO have reason to be worried...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle