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."

22 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Ah ha! by All+Dat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  2. Transfer the domain? by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?)

  3. Great... by mossr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Well that's clever. by Funksaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Maybe someone can help me out here... by Xebikr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Maybe someone can help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please. That tired argument is so dead. While you're at it, do you mind if I eavesdrop on your cell phone conversations? After all, I'm using my own equipment to intercept signals passing through my property.

      If you don't pay for the service, you have no right to use the service. Enough said!

  6. Hmmm... by Benedryl+Patanol · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seems like DirecTV should just hire a bunch of these people, they know what they're doing.

    --


    "Jerk store Jerry, jerk store... Jerk store!"
  7. National Sovereignty by pgrote · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. My life is complete by IgD · · Score: 4, Funny

    My Slashdot submission was posted!!!!!!!

  9. Next on Slashdot... by Geekenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DirecTV sues Slashdot.org under the DMCA for linking to an illegal site...

    Go ahead. Laugh. I tells ya it just might happen!

  10. Is it illegal by charlie763 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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...
  11. There's two sides to every coin by jdhutchins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:phhhthttt. by div_2n · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

  13. Other DirecTV Initiatives... by wumarkus420 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

  14. Re:Well that's clever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well here is the great part about Canada....

    Directv wants here, however they would like to own the rights to the "sky". The CRTC has said no, and now Directv is just a little on the upset side. It was told to them that if they could not block the satellite signal to Canada, well too bad, so sad, so to speak. It is not illegal to have Directv, just to sell it, and that being on a federal level, and that must be enforced by the RCMP, and they have more important things to be concerned about then who steals whos TV. Sorry for the run on sentence there.

    However there is a catch, companies like, Rogers Cable, Bell Canada, (Bell ExpressVU) and Star Choice, (another satellite provider)would like it made completely illegal on all levels, so they can increase their share of the market. However, if it was made illegal, would I go out and pay for TV, sorry folks no chance :)

    In regards to paying for it, yes, if you have Directv, and pay for it through an American account, that is considered to be the gray market and yes, that is illegal, however, when you can take it for nothing, then why not ??

  15. Re:Can anyone say by slantyyz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:I'm sure glad you're not an ISP... by Robber+Baron · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    Well I hate to break it to you, but according to the Canadian CRTC, I have exactly those rights! If it's in the air it's fair game...why do you think the military encrypts their shit? It doesn't become illegal until I tell someone else about the contents of what I intercepted! Interception is not illegal in Canada...OTOH dissemenation and distribution of intercepted content...well that's a different matter.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  17. Re:Can anyone say by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  18. how the hacking "started" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. :)

  19. Re:I'm sure glad you're not an ISP... by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amusingly enough, your sarcastic reply is actually correct. It's certainly legal to snoop traffic that comes over your own routers.

  20. What they forgot to mention by Dr.+Bareback · · Score: 5, Informative
    I have been following DTV news since "black Sunday" back in 2001, and all I have to say at this point is that pirates should be afraid, very afraid. DirecTV has seen piracy numbers skyrocket in the past few years as hundreds of (mostly American) dealers have sprouted up to sell pirate cards. Slowly and meticulously, they have begun to fight back and the tide is quickly turning. For instance:
    • DirecTV has shut down dealers. From the Great White North to Florida, DTV has sued and prosecuted anybody involved in selling programmed cards or smartcard equipment. (Often this equipment has many legitimate uses, but that is not a concern for them, is it now?) Dealers, wary of spending 20-30 years in prison for a victimless crime, turn over their customer lists as part of their settlement. Which brings me to my next point:
    • DirecTV has sued end-users. You can see them brag about it here. They presume guilt and ask the end-users of perfectly legitimate smartcard equipment to pony up $4000 or risk being sued in Federal court. The vast majority of these users, lacking backbone, settle. This makes a lot of money for DTV and allows them to expend even greater amounts of resources suing more innocent end users.
    • DirecTV has shut down informational sites. Starting with blatantly money-grubbing sites like decodernews.com (which sold subscriptions for hacking software) and progressing to the milder sites like hitecsat.com, they have stemmed the flow of information on conditional access technology. Their goal is to squelch all public discussion of smartcard technology and to keep the populace ignorant of how these systems work.
    • DirecTV has introduced two unhackable access cards. They have introduced a P4 card and a "P4.5" card, neither of which are vulnerable to any of the security holes that were exploited in their P3, P2, and P1 cards. The P3 was an exceptionally strong card, protected with encrypted ROM, encrypted EEPROM, encrypted RAM, an ASIC designed by Ron Rivest (of the RSA fame) with 256-bit stream ciphers, and strong physical security. The P4 is proving to be even more invincible than any other access card in existence; disassemblies posted at dssunderground.com point to the use of 3072-bit Diffie-Hellman private keys and dozens of booby traps hidden in the code. It may be virtually impossible to develop a commercially viable crack for the P4 and P4.5. Since the P3s are scheduled to be swapped out by the end of August, a lot of pirate TVs will be going dark very soon.
    • DirecTV is introducing new receivers. These new receivers (which are denoted by an "RID" number on the box) are specifically designed to detect hack attempts and to notify DTV of any anomalies. For instance, hackers attempt to "emulate" an access card with a PC, by setting the card slot serial baud rate to 19200bps instead of the usual 57600bps, to compensate for latencies introduced by the software. These new receivers detect this change and "flag" it as abnormal; DTV can detect this condition and send a technician to "check" on the setup, just as cable companies do when they see an unfiltered pirate box on the line.

    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.
  21. Canadian Radio Communications Act by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...