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.
My Slashdot submission was posted!!!!!!!
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!
...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 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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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 ----
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