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
'hobbyists' research and discuss ways of hacking satellite TV
And they think police don't monitor the site? duh...
--
Why would DirecTV want the domain? They have no rights to it. Now who's the pirate?
Or are they just throwing salt in the ground so that nothing grows back? (Anyone get that vague reference?)
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
Honestly, this is not the best use of the internet that I can think of. Sites like this will only aid those people/companies that are trying to ban everything under the sun with stuff like the DMCA.
I don't think it matters that DirecTV can't market their stuff in Canada - the Australian courts have ruled that online material is published in the nation of the reader (google for the recent Joe Gutnick defamation case heard in Australia about an online article published by a US newspaper). If the US courts see it the same (or DirecTV takes 'em on down under), they probably won't stand a chance (that's assuming it goes to court, obviously).
Personally, I think that running a site like this (and making money off it, too) is pretty darn irresponsible of the guy running it. It's kinda like waving a red rag at a bull, only you're a little kid that's tied to a stake in the ground and the bull is more of a homocidal maniac with a penchant for child-slaughter.
The PowerPC includes for this purpose two instructions called SYNC and EIEIO.
I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is located in my own yard, using equiptment that I own, that would just go into the dirt anyway, could be considered theft. Cable theft I can understand. They have physical equiptment that they own that is used to get the signal directly to my tv. The satellite signal is going to be there whether I use it or not.
Seems like DirecTV should just hire a bunch of these people, they know what they're doing.
"Jerk store Jerry, jerk store... Jerk store!"
What you forget it that the internet is the place where national sovereignty melts away.
Did you know that Direct TV cannot be bought in Canada due to law?
Direct TV in Canada?
There are only two sat companies in Canada recognized?
Canada doesn't recognize Direct TV
Here's another article
that explains the situation.
What you have is one country setting the laws for itself, but the internet crosses all national lines.
Instead of saying this is what the DMCA will be used for focus your efforts on the fact that the DMCA should be modified. Canada is doing us a favor.
So what exactly is a chat forum? Something like a car bicycle or a can bottle?
Fleur de Sel
or... a bunch of people are discussing things. hmm. which way will it go.
My Slashdot submission was posted!!!!!!!
In this turn of events, all that will win are the suits.
-- Multics
There may be ample laws in both jurisdictions, but so far, the Canadian government has turned a blind eye to stealing American signals. Go to any new housing development in Canada, and you'll see tons of houses with "grey market" dishes stealing American and European signals. It is, however, illegal to steal signal from Canadian providers.
A lot of "deep thinkers" in the Government probably are working under the impression that American culture is "hijacking" Canadian minds, and are secretly grinning that the American dish companies can't profit from Canadians. It will be interesting how much sympathy the courts will provide.
I don't think the situation will change much until the Canadian cable and dish companies really start lobbying and show how many "imaginary" Canadian jobs as well as how much tax revenue is being lost by not banning use of foreign dishes, thereby forcing them to use a Canadian provider.
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
DirecTV sues Slashdot.org under the DMCA for linking to an illegal site...
Go ahead. Laugh. I tells ya it just might happen!
Direct TV is hot on this and if what I have read is
correct, they have to be. It seems that their
encryption system is not all that hard to crack.
Much easier than DISH( ExpressVu).
Direct TV has and has had a running battle with
this, just another chapter. Sort of like the
spam blockers, its the game that counts.
...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...
It all comes down to the fact that if you're watchign their signals, they're not getting paid for it, and that causes a loss of profits. I don't know how their profits are doing, but if a company is starting to lose money, their first choice is to blame someone else and sue (SCO anyone?).
This is probably a gray area in the laws in the US. I'm sure some of the signals are copyrighted, so you're supposed to pay to use them. On the other hand, the signal's right there, so why not try to get at it? It's almost parallel to running Linux on the XBOX. It's there, why can't you do it? Because the company that created it doesn't want you to do it. That's why they want the DMCA.
The DMCA basically says that "if a company wants your money, they have a right to it", and here, DirectTV thinks they have a right to some money. Outside of the DMCA, however, I don't think this is well-definied in law, but IANAL.
On the other hand, don't go making a website devoted to cracking the signal. That's just asking for trouble. It'd be like if I started a website on how to pick car locks. It may be legal, but it may not be. It'd be different if they had made a name other than "Pirate's den", which is just asking for legal trouble.
There are A LOT of people cracking these cards for many people here on a regular basis. So many of us pirate DTV it doesn't feel wrong. Whether it is or not I could give a fuck...
I remember Black Sunday when all the cards went down. Since then it has been more difficult to keep cards up and running.
DTV should bring a legit service to our country (Some say our Gov't wouldn't let them in...which is understandable. The CBC was created to keep Canadians from becomming "too American"). I bet a lot of people who are tired of paying a lot of money to have their cards re-activated would turn to the legit service if it was a resonable price.
Unless of course the porno channels are pay-per-view, then DirectTV would surely loose all their suscribers to pirates.
The DMCA is not law in Canada, and thus it doesn't matter if it is a circumvention device.
- jdrake
"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.
I Like the fact that Direct TV isn't available here. I think that being able to choose from 3 different episodes of "Friends" any time of day is excessive. What a waste of time (as opposed to reading || posting on /.). I have one channel here in the boondocks of rural Alberta and even that's too many sometimes. Everytime I turn it on Mutant X seems to be on. Even if they ran around naked the show would still suck!
Maybe I'll just thrown the damn tv in the garbage.
I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is located in my own yard, using equiptment that I own, that would just go into the dirt anyway, could be considered theft. Cable theft I can understand. They have physical equiptment that they own that is used to get the signal directly to my tv. The satellite signal is going to be there whether I use it or not.
/sarcasm
I just don't get how intercepting a signal that is running through my own routers, using equiptment that I own, that just pass through as they would anyway, could be considered theft. Hacking the server I can understand. I have physical equiptment that I own that is used to get the signals directly. The data stream is going to be there whether I duplicate it or not.
Give me a break. You have as little right to hack satellite transmissions as you have to spy on military communications, cell phones, wireless keyboards, mouses and headphone, garage door openers, the EM emissions of my screen or anything else that happens to run across your airspace.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you need the perfect example of that, you need not look any further than the police crackdown on protesters of the 1998 APEC summit in Canada. The quick summary is that protesters were sitting on a road where the president of Indonesia would be driving through when the cops came up to them, told them to leave. Literally the next second (the video proves this), one Sgt. Stewart of the Royal Canadian Mounted Chimps pepper sprayed the entire crowd. Many of the protestors had to be hospitalized. It is truly one of the most disturbing police actions in Canada in recent memory.
My point is, if people who lawfully assemble and then are given no realistic opportunity to disband when the police/government decide that they don't like what they've seen (because of the economic advantages that would've come due to Indonesia's human rights abuses no doubt), and the subsequent inquiry into the matter is basically a cover-up exercise by the pseudodictatorship in Canada with no punishment for any of the RCMP in question, I doubt the courts in Canada will rule any differently in this case here.
Top that off with mandated minimums of Canadian programming content for each station by the CRTC, and you see that Canada really isn't the place for free speech at all.
The site itself is a circumvention device. It's only purpose is to facilitate the distribution of specific information on illegal exploits of a proprietary network.
No, information itself cannot be owned or a device for anything. It is a representation of free speech. Note that this case doesn't involve confidential trade secrets or similar. There's nothing illegal happening until someone actually uses the codes, schematics or tools that may or may not have passed through that site. And that might even be legal for Canadians because it's highly doubtful that anyone can be said to steal something from nothing as DirectTV doesn't have a commercial presence where the site is located, thus the merchandise actually doesn't exist in Canada - or at least has no value for the company there.
Yes, information still wants to be free...
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
In case others didn't know, DTV (aka Dave) recently shutdown 63 dealer sites in a huge bust. You can check out their own enforcement page at hackhu.com (a former info site). They are also suing end-users at an alarming rate based ONLY on shipping records for standard ISO smartcard devices. It has actually gotten pretty out of control with intimidation letters and complaints in the amount of $10,000. Lots of people don't even know they've been sued (many people have moved in the 2 years it's taken DTV to sue them). People are getting default judgements against them for the full amount request by DTV. Florida has been particularly hit hard with THOUSANDS of cases. I urge everyone to stay informed about this, because once again, they use the veil of the DMCA as justification for their efforts. Some of these people are being sued for buying a completely legitamate ISO7816 device that can be used for millions of other things than just DTV hacking. Check out http://www.legal-rights.org/ for more info on DTV legal info. I also have a forum section dedicated to the DTV legal battles with up to date lists of who has been sued and in what state. There is no discussion of hacking there.
forums.wumarkus.com
To anyone who has received an intimidation letter or summons, GOOD LUCK!
So
If a website like CERTs http://www.cert.org/
started using the information that these individuals have written, to inform sat/cable companies of what they have found, should that be illegal?
If the only difference is that CERT uses government dollars rather than advertisements, to foot the bill, and that it is run by american boys and girls in a university.
Does that give them special priviledges than most other folks who talk, or find about a hack?
Mabidex
"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.
Ok, frankly i cant see how DirectTV is loosing money up here in canada. They dont sell a product up here for them to loose. It would prolly cost more for them to figure out a way to block their signal from getting onto canadian soil then anything else. It shouldnt be the responsability of a Canadian entity to stop americans from viewing the site. Does china shut down sites hosted in the states that talk bad about china? No, they setup a firewall to stop chinese citizens from accessing the site. American corp. doesnt like it? Maybe they should convince the 'FREE' ( HAH! ) states to setup a country wide firewall to stop citizens from accessing information on sites they deem unnacceptable. Just because its illegal in your country doesnt mean you have any jurisdiction in my country!
Keep in mind that there is no DMCA "circumvention device" provision in force in Canada.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Yeah, but if Celine Dion came out and said she were ashamed that Jean Chretien came from Quebec, she'd be unlikely to be called Un-Canadian, have her CDs trampled by bulldozers, and receive death threats.
Our Prime Minister can strangle his own detractors, thank you. (I tried to find a link with the picture of him doing that, but couldn't... oh well)
Oh right. I'm going to sell my vote for access to DirecTV. As if there are absolutely no other issues to consider when electing a government.
Also, it's not illegal to acquire or use satellite signal receivers or dishes from the United States. It's illegal to sell them, and for a good reason. They don't provide any Canadian content and they don't provide Canadian commercials.
Why is this bad, you ask? Because the television industry is huge. It creates jobs, and employed people pay taxes. Taxes give us infrastructure, medicare and whatever else we need.
It's all about getting a piece of the pie.
They should have gotten a .ca domain or at least used a Canadian registrar. Network Solutions could be pressured in an American court to transfer the domain.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Sue them in order to pander their non-essential wares? I think that's taking it just wee bit too far. It's fucking satellite TV here, not rations and penicillin to a war torn country.
Besides, I really doubt that you'd even get a court case like that through the door. A company suing a FOREIGN government for the right to sell TV? It even sounds ridiculous.
Let me get this straight.. Canadians can't pay for directv since it cannot be sold there. Hacking the signal causes no actual damage to directv or any of their legal subscribers. Since the hackers are unable to become customers, directv has not actually been materially damaged in any way. They have lost no money. On what grounds can they possibly sue this website in Canada?
>Better yet, Canadian voters should elect less >socialistic/paternalistic representatives. Just a >thought
How about US voters elect one that doesnt meddle in the affairs of others, doesnt breed and support terrrorism when suit their needs and doesnt have a foreign policy whose main goal isnt the profit margin of corporations which runs the country?
Maybe voters could even vote finally for a government that doesnt for once bomb innocent civilians while systematically breaking international laws every time they breath?
Who knows maybe voters could finally vote for a government that makes sure that illiteracy isnt ramapant, that people have access to medical care and that a post secondary education doesnt bankrupt working class families?
Or they could decide that spending 40 billion a year on a failed war on drugs which arrests 835,000 pot smokers every year and which has totally ripped the constitution to shreds is doing nothing but line the pockets of groups on both sides.
Who know maybe the could demand that their governments are actually held accountable for actions or lack of actions? (the creation of Bon Laden, the dealings of the Bush famnily with BinLaden or Rumsfeld selling Korea, or Sadam, something which a few years later he claims makes them dangerous.)
Of course, if you didnt maybe a few well placed bombing runs over a few key americans cities would convince the people to over throw the current illegitimate government. This wouldnt be done to harm the civilian populations of course, never is....just a few weeks of continuouis bombing to incite the us population to take matters in their own hands.
Just a thought too...
zeke
Aiding and abetting someone to theft (of service) is still i believe a criminal offence, same as cloned cards,cable cubes etc.
I know you are a troll but I'll nail you to the wall anyways...
I have smartcard readers and writers, about 20 smartcards and assorted smartcard software. So this makes me a criminal? I use them for developing login/logout systems for linux (as well as with ibuttons) but by your standard I'm a criminal that needs to get 6000 years in prison and fined 30 gajillion dollars.. oh an let a mass morderer get only 5 years probation.. he only murdered people but I have the potential of stealing 900 quadrillion in profits form every company on the planet and magically launch all the nuclear missles...
Ok I'm blowing it way up... but I'm making a point... electronics are not criminal. owning equipment IS NOT CRIMINAL and electronic crim is not an offense that is worse than murder yet people like you and the politicians believe so.
Knowlege is power, CEO's and Governments dont like knowlege in the hands of the general public.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It used to be "legal" to buy Direct TV in Canada several years ago. many peopel who winter six months of the year in Florida woudl simply bring thier systems back to home to Canada with them. Other people, often those who lived in the country where no cable TV was available, who drive into the US (approx: 90% of all Canadian live within 200 miles of the US boarder)and buy a setup, and start payments direclty off thier credit card. Everybody turned a blind eye, and while there was some hacking going on, it was just easier to pay for it out right. When the government in Canada made it illegal to buy Direct TV, thousands of Canadian with US satelite systems were screwed. Remember too, that the small dish systems came out int he USA about 3 years before a similar system was ready in Canada, so there was demand bu no supply. After "banning" Direct TV, that's when the hacking industry came out full bloom. the problem is, there are more hacked cards in New York City alone than in all of Canada, and if the hacking was going on only in Canada, Direct TV probally wouldn't care. But too many of the hackers make thier real money selling to the USA, which really PO's Direct TV (and right fully so). The interesting thing why many peopel get the US dish in Canada is for programming not available in Canada. For exmaple, the CRTC here in Canada willnto allow Fox News here - talk about censorship! Whatever you think of Fox news, the point i, we can watch Sex TV openly on local TV, but the O'Reilly report ot too dangerous for Candains to watch. Go figure? Oh yes, the other channel "banned" in Canada - Turner Classic Movies. :)
A site that DirecTV took over, www.hackhu.com better explains their intensions. Infact, DirecTV has take about 100 sites and made them anti-hacking sites like the one above.
Actually I suspect if Celine Dion came out and said something negative about Chretien the rest of the country would simply agree.
(Why is it, in my mind that he has only made good decisions in the last year or so.. now that he doesn't give a shit he makes more decisions for the right reasons... although, I still dislike him.
Exactly. And Slashdot should not be responsible when I tell you all that it's easy to circumvent the license key protection in Microsoft Office 97: just hold down the "1" key until you hear the bell (i.e., the input field fills up) -- then hit Enter.
Of course the "developer codes" changed in future versions, but I still use 97 sometimes.
It's a discussion forum, nothing more nothing less. The operator is "making a profit" because he sells advertising but that's the only thing he sells, and that shouldn't get him in trouble.
I'm very interested to see where this one will lead us; others are talking about Australian law being that the Internet's jurisdiction is in the country of the reader, so perhaps DirecTV will go after Canada from Australia. We certainly live in interesting times!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
people will be scared of this?
People in the US and canada are willfully blind to simple reality.
All you have to do is look closely at the black rights movement in the USA. Everyone will see Martin Luther King, and all that wonderfull Ghandi like BS. But what they neglect to see why the US was willing the let King win, and that was because of the militant black movement and Malcolm X. They were the gun to the head of america if america wouldn't play fair. When too many heads got knocked in, Malcolm X got more recruits. If US powers hadn't eased off it might have become another civil war.
If you want to have an official front of peacefull protest, the powers that be have to know that theres an iron fist behind the kid gloves.
It's not an illegal exploit in Canada.
Those signals are broadcast into Canada without invitation, and are not given any special government protection, unlike in the USA. They are thus considered public domain, and intercepting and decoding them is therefore not illegal.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
You obviously have no understanding of the laws of Canada, nor its current relationship with Great Britain (not England). I'd correct your mistakes, but why bother?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Though I don't think I have a right to Bell or Stars signals even though they come down on my property thats because the Canadian Government has licensed them. I get a better education and health care because of them. Same is true with cell towers and radio stations. True the go through my airspace but they contribute to our social programs. DirecTV doesn't though. In fact I think they should be fined on behave of everyone in Canada. Through out the case and fine them millions of dollars for not keeping there signals out of our country.
Living in Canada my whole life, I have to correct you. We're not a "pseudodictatorship" as you put it... we're a FRIENDLY dictatorship. :)
. bush.ap/index.html
As for free speech... you're picking a single instance that happened 5 years ago. I agree, it's a grotesque violation of civil liberties, and we've never been able to shake the shame. However, saying that Canada is not the place for free speech... well, I can't diagree with you more. The fact I can watch the CBC at any time of day and see boobs, hear cussing, showing of the middle finger etc (in essence, no censorship), as well as on other canadian stations such as Bravo, this to me proves that Canada IS a place of freedom of speech.
And hey, if we're going to decide whether or not a country has free speech or not based on a single instance, the states is a goldmine of exmples. How about in December of 2002 when a man was arrested for making a joke about how God will speak to the world with a "Burning Bush" (I think it's witty...)? Is that not stifling free speach as well? My bookmark to this article is no longer working, but it was here: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/06/burning
I'm not much for cnn, but I saw this story on several newsites back in december...
So, the moral of the story is, don't bother getting into this mess (I'm glad I never did), because the game will be over soon.
There may be ample laws in both jurisdictions, but so far, the Canadian government has turned a blind eye to stealing American signals.
First, if there are laws then its not the government but the police / justice department per say that is turning a blind eye, and not the government as a whole.
If the Govenrment does not care, even if there is a law does it matter if it is technically illegal. We have all sort of laws that are not enforced and taken out eventually. Here it was illegal to be in a park before 7 and people ride their bikes every day. They only took it out recently but it was never enforced. If a law is broad stupid and never enforced or known of and police dont give a damn about it; having better things to do like our way low violent crime rate, then Kudo's.
Frankly I find it scary that corperations have so much say in making laws down in the states. We dont have as big of a lobby here. We are also forcing transperancy on all political donations and restricting contribution on donations. Thats probobly why we dont have DMCA or some other stupid laws here in the first place. Our government seems big on transparancy and according to our Freedom of Information Privacy Act we can request almost any information we want from our govenment(read it if you want to know what we can not request for privacy / legal / security reasons, but the attitude is there has to be a good reason for us not being able to request the info). I am big on keeping an eye on it even if I really cant do lots about what they are doing , irresponsible spending etc. We call them to task on stuff all the time.
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.
The site is not a circumvention device unless the participants can grab the signals out of the air with the power of their mind. We've still got some distinction between info and hardware, and the participants need _hardware_ in order to make use of the info. He's not selling hardware.
Botton line on satellite hacking is quite simple -
If you don't want me viewing your signal, then don't point your signal at me and don't bath my property in your signal.
Unfortunatly your point in this particular case is moot. DirecTV is not legaly allowed to sell it's services in Canada. Because they constantly broadcast their signal into Canada, it's consistantly an unavoidable finanial loss. So if I were to decrypt their signal, which is so readily available in my yard, I am not taking any resources away from DirecTV, rather I'm taking advantage of resources they are wasting on me.
Nor does Canada have the same constitutional guarantees for free speech that US citizens have.
Nonsense, look up the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms via google. Look for the part about Freedom of Expression.
Trolling is a art,
Actually Canada does have a constituational guarantee for free speech.
It's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter
It's considered a fundamental freedom.
Perhaps your thinking of the British north America act of 1867 which was the constitution (basically an extention of the British constitution) originally, however this was changed in 1982 when Canada made it's constitution a piece of it's own legislation rather and a British one.
It is true however that any right within the charter of freedoms can be overuled in law, however such laws must be passed with a 70% and must be re-voted upon every 4 years.
The only time this has happened with the right to freedom of expression, as far as I know, was in Quebec with it's language laws, but those laws were overturned a few years back due to a failed re-vote
once DTV shuts these people down there will be nothing to worry about
Funny how the media people only tout the right of free speech when it benefits THEM.. if it doesnt, or is against them even in the slightest, then they cry foul..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A. Gordon Gecko also stole Ivan Boesky's line that "Greed is Good". Which I guess makes stealing satellite signals ok. In any case, Gordon Gecko is a fictitious character, so I doubt anyone with a brain will be sending him an e-mail with any questions soon.
B. To get someone else's credit card number, you need a pen, paper and to look over the guy's shoulder. Write down credit card number, name, expiry number. (Yes, that's all you need) Woops, the FBI's going to come after me for posting that information. DUH.
C. Woops, VISA/AMEX/MC are going to try to shut down Slashdot for allowing me to post information on how to illegally acquire someone else's CC info.
You can buy Canadian satellite/ receiver packages for the US. The dealer basically takes US$, converts to Cd$, and pays from a Canadian address and checking account for you. You can't plug the receiver into the telephone line, of course.
The advantage? Sports, especially Olympic coverage. Canadian announcers just broadcast the games without all the anchor cut-ins and opinionating. It's nice to be able to watch a complete hockey game, the American broadcasters just plain suck.
And the best thing of all, no Bob Costas! Yeah!
From the site:
H Card Status: Shutdown | Music Channels Only
HU Card Status: Hacked | Activation, 3M, Emulation Working
P4 Status: Currently Unhacked | Subscription Only
I received my P4 cards last October, and I'm assuming most others have received theirs as well... why not just turn off the HU cards?
It seems to me that a website operator that provides an open forum for discussion should be no more at fault for the content of patron conversation than a restaurant owner should when people sit and chat there.
See also: Slashdot vs. Church of Scientology.
(FYI: This was, what?, 5 years ago? Something like that. Slashdot had an article about the Co$, and some one in the comments posted copyrighted material from one of the high level "religious" texts in the "church". The Co$ threatened to sue slashdot, et. al. (come to think of it, there may not have been an et. al. at that point, other than valinux, and this may have been before them), and the slashdot mods took down the comments relating to the copyrighted material. Slashdot was probably safe, but they didn't want to risk it by going to bat for their users and risking legal action as well as all of the stuff the Co$ would have tried to do to them - read xenu.net for info on what the Co$ feels is fair play to people who say bad things about them. End parenthetical explanation.)
~Will
sig?
Canadian RadioCommunications Act
9. (1) No person shall
(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
10. (1) Every person who
(b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,
(2.1) Every person who contravenes paragraph 9(1)(c) or (d) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.
Exception
(2.3) No person who decodes an encrypted subscription programming signal in contravention of paragraph 9(1)(c) shall be convicted of an offence under that paragraph if the lawful distributor had the lawful right to make the signal available, on payment of a subscription fee or other charge, to persons in the area where the signal was decoded but had not made the signal readily available to those persons.
May I direct your attention to the word LAWFUL. In every court case in Canada save one, distributors of DTV receivers, cards, etc. won handily because their activities involved a service that has no lawful distributor in Canada. DTV is not licensed in Canada and never will be due to our strict Canadian content laws (some call it censorship but what it really amounts to is a quota of domestic TV over foreign broadcasts, the content is not at issue per se).
Now, the Supreme Court threw a curve ball when it ruled in April 2002 that the law provided a blanket prohibition on decoding signals from ANY source. Prior to this the law was in favor or decoding signals from someone other than a lawful source as every court decision came down in favor of the satellite dealers, so the decision was a bit of surprise. The ruling was limited in scope to the communications act itself not the act under the Charter of Rights, our version of the Bill of Rights, and that issue remains to be ruled on.
So, I would submit that while the decoding of DTV in Canada is technically illegal (for the time being pending the constitutional outcome) talking about decoding a signal is a far different matter. Contrary to what anyone here has said, Canada has very strong free speech protections. Under our Charter of Rights any interference with your right to free speech must be justified and the onus is on the government to prove that its intentions are not contrary to a "free and democratic society", limited to the dimishment of certain act, proportional, etc. The bar is quite high. DTV starts out in a losing position since by the interpretation of our Charter by the Supreme Court, Pirate's Den is protected speech, in fact all speech is protected. If you read our Supreme Court decisions they say this in pretty much plain english. Of course I am not a lawyer, but even a lay person can read a court decision and understand what they are saying. We shall see...
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
I am quite familiar with the CCRF. If you would be so kind as to re-read my statement, it is most clear that I say Canada does not have the same guarantees for free speech.
More importantly, people's fingers are circumvention devices, as are their brains. Both are used to post this hideous, illegal content. We can fix those problems with bonesaws though...
because you've paid for all the decryption hardware and card programmers, and go to the trouble of buying a new card and reprogramming it when they change their encryption. You're perfectly willing to pay for it, you just don't want to pay them as much as they're asking for it. It clearly has value to you, or you wouldn't go to the trouble of trying to decrypt it.
If it's so trivial, why does the Canadian government restrict it? Isn't it rather Big Brotherish to say "No, you can't subscribe to American television, it's Bad for you"? What, they're afraid people might watch Fox News?
Yes, I'll side with the Canucks on pot laws. It's a dumb habit but it's futile to outlaw stupidity.
And the protectionist crap Bush signed against Canada early in his term was major-league dumb, but I think he's learned his lesson there.
As for suing the Canadian government, it makes more sense than suing Canadian hackers.
Interesting how every time I take a swipe at socialists I get modded down. Probably by the same people who scream "McCarthyism!" at the drop of a hat.
You're perfectly willing to pay for it, you just don't want to pay them as much as they're asking for it
Or you can't legally pay for it because of your country's content laws forbid Canadians from buying the service.
Are you actually an idiot, or do you just like to sound like one? "ask Gordon Gecko"? He's a fictional character, my friend, and from a bad movie to boot. Just because something is written in a movie script doesn't mean it's true. Information is data, collections of facts, knowledge; I challenge you to show me an example of facts, data, or knowledge that is "owned" by anyone.
Furthermore, it seems we differ on the most basic principles here. Sure the data being exchanged is harmless until implemented.
Which leads directly to the point, which is that the implementation is illegal, not the knowing. End of story.
The data is not the device. The forum is the device, a communication device built and marketted solely for the dissemination of data.
Exactly. A device like a newspaper. Or a book. Or a public streetcorner at which one speaks. These are not illegal.
In this case, it is also the vehicle for conspiracy to commit unauthorized communications interception and descrambling.
The fact that conspiracy may or may not be taking place on a public message board is irrelevant. Conspiracy is illegal. Running a public message board is not.
The data being exchanged isn't itself the problem- rather, it is the intent of the forum that is the problem.
Aha, there we go. It may seem "patently obvious" that said message board is intended to facilitate illegal activity, but the law just doesn't work that way. You say "the data isn't the problem...it is the intent of the forum"? Are you so thick as to believe that if I start a forum entitled "help me rob my bank" in order to get people to help me plan a bank robbery, but all they talk about is pokemon, then we're all still guilty of conspiracy based on the "intent" of the message forum? Think again, genius.
words like collusion and conspiracy imediately spring to mind, and for a good reason: that's what is happening at this site.
Absolutely incorrect. "Conspiracy" is the act of two or more people agreeing to commit a crime together. This is not the same thing as people talking about how one might, theoretically, commit a crime by oneself. The former is illegal. The latter is not. Show me an instance of the site owner and one or more people on the message board agreeing to work together on the commission of a single crime. It ain't there, pal.
To simplify matters, just replace 'signal' with 'credit card number'. Do things start to become clear now?
Yes, it is now abundantly clear that you are a complete moron. The two are totally incomparable. Decrypting a radio signal which is raining down on our roofs whether we want it or not costs DirecTV nothing. Don't bother with the whole "losing potential revenue" crap, because that argument requires you to prove how things would be in an alternate fucking universe that never happened. Are you really comparing that to running up charges on someone else's credit card? DirecTV doesn't get a bill from "pirates" using their signal. Hell, in Canada they can't even argue that they might have paid for it because, in Canada, they can't!
In short: 1) information cannot be owned; 2) conspiracy requires mutual agreement to commit a crime; 3) decrypting an extant signal is not theft; and 4) you are an idiot.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Incorrect. One cannot use the site to crack the signal. Calling the site a circumvention device is as stupid as calling the English language a circumvention device.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Aldous Huxley was much more on target with Brave New World. Mmmmmm... soma in the sky...
I bought a card reader a couple years ago, farted around with it, looked at some of the code on my access card, lost interest & threw it in a drawer. I might be lazy, but It looked like too much of a pain in the ass to do anything worthwhile with it. I never considered myself a signal thief- I've been a DTV subscriber for nearly two years- I pay my bill on time, usually buy a couple ppv's each month. I received my second threat letter from DTV yesterday, complete with a copy of court docs. I have 10 days from the 27th to respond. The word is that you can do nothing and get nailed with a $10k default judgment, call the phone number on the letter and settle for 3 payments totaling $3500, or fight it in court. I looked around and found that most people are saying that they are paying these DTV assholes the $3500. I intend to fight it to the bitter end- From what I hear, this will cost me around $300-$500 in liar fees up front, with God knows how much later. I've got the cash and intend to not be an easy mark. I'm also making a miniscule gesture and moving to cable or dish network- Doesn't hurt DTV in the least, but it makes *me* feel better :-). I wish there *was* something that I *could* do (uuummmm...within the boundaries of state and federal law, of course...) that would produce, in the correct persons, the the feelings of my fist slowly rotating in their asses.
Actually.. back in the day of the traditional pirates, many were given the letter of marque(sp) by one nation... to attack another nations ships. the letter of marque made piracy perfectly legal, much in the same way that america considers the liberation of iraq legal.
Canada does give the what I would term a letter of marque to video pirates, basicly stating that anything in the air is in the public domain.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
This is the biggest piece of BS that DTV is dong and the DMCA allows this. People who bought a device over the net, mainly smart card readers which are perfectly legal are receiving letters from DTV and demanding money for this. If you dont reply they threaten with taking your to court. Well, umm if i buy a device over the net how do you know i used this device to steal/decode/decrypt your signal? Dont you have to prove I did this, buying something doesnt prove anything? Its like saying you own a CDR and you used to to copy/steal software so you should pay me X amount.. WTF, man the DCMA really allows for some evil stuff to happen to end users. beaware! :/
Pocket Girls. Mobile Adult Mini Mags for your Phone.
If it's in the air, it's out. There's no way you can honestly enforce this, at least not in Canada. Why? It's illegal for them to broadcast in Canada (for whatever reason); Canadian judges have ruled that it's not illegal to decode these signals since they don't offer them.
If your phone is hardwired and you make the effort to ensure it's fine, then police need a warrant to tap it. If you are using a cell phone, they don't. If you leave your curtains open, it's not illegal for the police to look in. It is illegal for them to use alternate imaging equipment which views wavelengths that'll pass through most visible-light opaque material, as was ruled.
Once again: if you are broadcasting a signal of some kind, or emiting reflected waves that you are not taking the effort to not transmit via curtains or using wires, you have no legal equivalnce of wired security, and are doing so at your own risk. Due dilligence is important.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
"Before you say a quick 'no', be aware of the recent decision by the German courts that eBay.com, despite being an American company, is subject to German law (hence the removal of their nazi paraphanelia)."
Uh, no, that was France. Plus, if you didn't know, eBay avoided any legal problems.
Guess what: US companies aren't subject to German laws. If people order shit that's illegal, the German post office is supposed to stop it. And, because they're nice, those companies (as you read in the article) will try and follow those rules. But it's not a legal requirement.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Yes, they needed a licence in order to be able to broadcast, but I had the freedom to listen to that frequency before the company ever existed.
You Had that freedom. Your government sold that frequency to DirecTV, just as it sold other frequencies to other companies (mobile phone operators, etc) for various purposes. It's not like you're not benefitting from that sale is it?
If you don't like the situation, address the issue with your government. Don't try and justify signal theft* by using that "hey, it's out there so why can't I do what I like with the signal?" line. Because if you go down that route, you're accepting that your government (and anyone else for that matter) is just as entitled to spy on your communications using Echelon and other technologies.
Do you really want that for your phone conversations and internet traffic? No, I don't think so.
See where that slippery slope goes?
(*Or whatever you want to call it. I use the term signal theft because it's clearly understood, not because I want to label people as thieves.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It is hard to believe that both Trailer Part Boys, and The Osbornes (both air around 10pm various days) are censored in the US and not in Canada. But Canada and the US use drasticaly different models for operation.
.ca address, it was purchased for the term from 1998-2005. Prior to November 2000, there would have been no way for him to obtain a .ca address, for the University of British Columbia's policy for assigning .xx.ca (where xx is the provincial abbreviation) were quite strict, and only for educational institutes (elementary, secondary, and post-secondary), and for firmly established Canadian businesses. (November was a great month for those who wanted to finally purchase a .ca address (or more to re-sell))
Several points of interest is the Canadian legal system. It is not in any means like that of the US. Canadian laws are divided into the morphing commonlaws of the provinces, and the more or less static federal chartered rights. It is up to the judge at hand to decide whether to honour a commonlaw or not, or to decide the case entirely on chartered rights (like freedom of speech) if they are wary of contradictory laws in place depending on province [canadian laws are pseudo-laws, and often come and go, or are ignored by courts]. Because of this any prior judge ruling at any court level is an isolated case which ideally is not to be taken into account in the proceding of any other case. The American mindset that a court ruling will set precidence for use in future cases just doesn't apply as it does in American courts.
If the fact that the website has not set up its own access rights to block the US based on the IP numbers assigned to the US (easily done to provide region control), and then under traditional Canadian legal practice, that will be considered an international case where only proper International Law will be considered, and Canadian Law at the discretion of the court.
Another big blow for the Canadian legal system is that there are no high payouts. The most you can usually get are the associated fines for the charge at hand, and even then, courts often limit that. [General practise for courts to limit any liability to less than CDN$10,000 from individuals, $100,000 from businesses] In short, our courts are for putting criminals away, and not for making money (in small claims, and other levels, if you sue, and lose, you must pay the legal fees that were incurred by the defendant for arguing a false claim, and depending on the person, expect to see a defament[sic?] of character case right back at them (CDN$150000))
If this were entirely a Canadian matter, there would be nothing against it. Decryption is not illegal. You can take classes at University to learn how to decrypt various signals. In the Canadian legal mindset, the fault is your own for not encrypting it well enough, and to be openly broadcasting it to people you don't want peering in. DirecTV licensed use of a particular frequency in the US - the use of this frequency is unregulated in Canada and they have no more claim to it than someone in their garage, provided they follow the CRTC provisions on frequency usage and range. DirecTV cannot even market to Canadians unless they conform to 60% Canadian content on all channels they offer, and black out commercials selling or depicting various items which are illegal in Canada as well (Love watching those little music montages for 30 seconds over a blanked US commercial)
As far as current Canadian politics go (gotta love Cretien), I can see no reason for the Canadian government to even cooperate with DTV's wishes and force him to appear in an American court. They would probably say that this is a Canadian citizen, freely speaking via equipment operating on Canadian soil. This will be a difficult case for DTV.
Speaking on the many points as to why pirateden.com didn't just get a
As for the for freedom of speech, Canada does value its citizens personal libe
Seems that nobody has mentioned this, and this post may be seen only by me, but when canadians hack the US satellite signal, the only one who loses out is Canada itself. These people obviously will not buy cable or canadian satellite, or if they do, they will buy vastly less than they would have (common sense). Therefore, canadian companies lose out, which would be the reason I would try to use if I were trying to make it against the law in Canada (so northern brothers, be on the look).
Another reason to make this illegal though, is forward thinking. In the future, it probably will be possible to intercept almost any wire wirelessly, i.e. reading the very tiny emissions from wires themselves. When this happens, do we want it legal to watch, read, and listen to everything we do? Hmm, maybe I should invest in lead houses, could come in handy...
Posted by yintercept - "...science...[is] the study of the 'divine creation.' "
How exactly do these receivers communicate back to DirecTV if they think something is wrong or it "flags" the bit rate of the emulator, I tend to think this is impossible unless you still plug in the phone line, and if your using a modified DTV box in the first place, why would you plug it in anyway?
We can already do this, and we call it Wardriving
this country is going to hell
The government isn't illegitimate. I didn't vote for Bush, but he did win the electoral college, which means that he won the election.
It's a bad idea to arm religious extremists, no matter what.
Which is why Bush should NOT be in office, right?
How about you take the corn cob out of your ass?
Feel free to beam something through my property (if it's not harmful) but don't tell me I can't listen to it. If you don't want me to listen, we get to the issue that you're using my property (and the space I occupy) without asking, so if one of us is going to accomodate the other, I'd prefer it be the broadcaster changing their practice.
Think of this as me selling a stock-quote service, where I sit on my house with a bull-horn and shout the quotes to subscribers who live nearby. You start to listen, without paying, and I sue to force you to stay inside or wear ear-plugs. By listening to what I'm shouting, across your property, you're stealing my service.
Would this be different if I "encrypted" stock quotes in pig latin? Should I be able to force people to stop discussing how to decrypt pig latin?
But, if I rented space from the phone company, ran speaking tubes under the street to each subscriber, and didn't send a signal across your property, I'd have a case about you cracking open a telco access hatch, splicing into my cable, and reducing the ammount of "signal" (compression waves in the air) going by.
If DirecTV wants to send the signal out to everyone, they should accept that everyone can listen. If they want privacy they can run cables to people. There are drawbacks both ways.
With all of this said, in actuality Canada is doing us a huge favor.
What are you talking about. Have you ever heard of something called free speech?? Next time why try reading the article twice before you comment on something and maybe you might comprehend it better.