Slashdot Mirror
$180 Million for Piracy Conspiracy
theCoder writes "According to an AP story printed in the Orlando Sentinel, Steven R. Frazier has been ordered to pay $180 million restitution for attempting to sell a device that would decrypt the satellite signals sent into everyone's homes. In addition to spending the next 5 years in Federal prison, Frazier will have to pay $500 a month for the next 30,000 years, though no one really expects him to live long enough to make all the payments. That value is based on estimated loses DirectTV and Echostar may have incurred had Frazier been able to sell his devices. Being ordered to pay restitution for actual damages is one thing, but paying for some made up number of future damages? Maybe if I catch someone trying to break into my car, I can sue him for the damage he would have caused if he succeeded..."
There's precedent. Kevin Mitnick got incarcerated for many years (without a trial) based on the potential damages the source code he had might have been worth. Turns out those potantial damges were *greatly* inflated (by many orders of magnitude), as is probably the case here with DirecTV/Dish Networks. It didn't help Mitnick get out of jail any earlier though.
This is insane. But then again there is so much more of this going on around the US and Canada right now that is not discussed. Actually not sure if the people of slashdot are aware but awhile back there was an article on a website called Pirate's Den where he was being forced to close down and opened another site to make people aware called Freedom Fight.ca. Well he was gagged the other morning and is now unable to operate his FREE SPEECH website anymore cause DTV has slapped a lawsuit on him and to boot a gag order. So this Frazier guy is only an example of what goes on each and everyday in the US and Canada. Judges seem to be on the side of big business and big brother these days. Its sad.
Another site with information regarding this issue is www.live103.com
The companies say (in the article) that 3million people cost them about $4Billion per year. That's about $1,300/year/person. This guy was supposedly arranging to deliver his kit to about 5000 people, so that would come to about 6.5million per year... Thay'd have to amortize that kit over about 150 years to get a $900million price tag. More likely than not, the kit would only be good for about 2 years (at most). so we're loking at a more realistic cost in the $13Million range -- still, a nasty sum to pay off, but a bit more sane.
Problem with him appealing this sentence is that an apeals court might cut the award to $13Million but have him pay off $1K/month instead of $500.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Plus McDonalds had ignored several previous warnings that their coffee was served too hot, far above the normal remperature for restaurant coffee, and had the potential to cause serious injury.
Note: I'm not taking any sides here, just bringing up a fact.
Three points:
Brazil will extradite in a Ney York minute.
Another reason for this is making the sentence stick. If one of the crimes was successfully appealed, the sentence for the other(s) would still stand.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
Well don't we all wish we could abdicate [dictionary.com] the death penalty. Now if you were advocating [dictionary.com] the death penality I'd have issues.
Sorry. I just couldn't resist being a grammer snob. This is gonna cost me some karma...
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Read this explanation from a political science professor, for instance, and try not to be confused. The author, in attempting to reconcile the absurd acts of modern legislatures with actual legal theory, has even managed to confuse himself:
What? He admits that a crime of omission cannot exist because it is an oxymoron. This conclusion is dependent upon the basic definition of crime that has existed since time immemorial: crime requires injury. An injury is an act committed against someone that results in harm to them.
Not doing something is not a crime; it isn't even an act. Yet, implicit also in the acceptance of "prescribed" rules of conduct being punishable as "crimes" is the acceptance of "crimes of omission," which he himself states is an oxymoron.
Thinking about doing something isn't an act, either. It would be more properly termed a thought crime, regardless of what Mr. Gates says.
It should be obvious that even the intellectual charlatans who affix themselves to the coattails of oppressive governments and attempt to explain logically it's actions cannot, in the process, help but become confused themselves.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Absolutely correct. If you're given a jury award against a company and the award would bankrupt the company, the fucking judge will throw out the award. But this guy is just an individual, so he can be hung by either or both balls.
I make 5.50/hr, I worked 74.7 hours last pay period (they automatically take out lunch) (I'm looking at my payroll stub now.) That comes out to 410.85. Looking at my taxes now... FICA; 25.47. Medicare; 5.96. Federal; 32.78. State; 16.44.
Total income, 410.85; Total Taxes; 80.65. Thats 19.6 percent of my measly income going to taxes.
Total take home pay for this pay period, 330.2. SO, I guess that means I take home about 650/month. After rent, utilites, food...
Sorry, I probably shouldn't complain, but these comments about "basically not paying taxes" and "500 a month is chump change" sort of rubbed me the wrong way, especially after another failure to get an evening job.
Then again, I'm not going out of my way to piss off multi-million dollar corporations (and the governments they have in their pocket), either.
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
Actually, if you knew the facts and theory surrounding the hot coffee case you would think differently...or maybe not.
Mickey D's had the temperature of their coffee for years at over 180+ degrees...at least that is what they served it at. At that temperature, a third degree burn occurs in seconds if the coffee is spilled on someone
The million dollars the plaintiff was awarded in that case was the amount McD's made on coffee in one day. The whole issue was that because of the temperature of McD's coffee (which is hotter that Starbucks), there were somewhere in the ballpark of 600 to 800 severe burns.
The theory is, if punishing McD's finacially causes them to either make better spill proof lids or but coffee cups that keep the temperature hot enough for a long time without having to make the temperature so hot, then this would prevent 600 to 800 severe burns a year
And yes, it worked, McD's improved their lids, their cups, and decreased the temperature of the coffee. I don't remember how much this cut down on severe burns a year, but its was over an 80% decrease.
Additionally, because of this case, other fast found joints, i.e. BK lounge, also changed their coffee lids, cups, and temperature....Starbucks and Caribou coffee then implemented the policy of never giving a drink to a patron unless the top is on it...
So, because of the McD's coffee case, which seemed completely ridiculous to me too at the time...actually had a greater impact in saving money in medical cost and other social cost from severe burns by getting those that serve coffee to implement some preventive measures.
A lot of severe burns caused by accidents have been prevented because of that one case....Don't always think a case that sounds absurd doesn't have some other positive impact...
A search on snopes for 'death sentence' gives 40 results and not one match. Don't confuse this with the urban legend that if a execution fails then the prisoner is freed as it is seen as an act of God.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Steal is not the correct term. Theft involves depriving some one of real property, not depriving them of potential sales.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
value proposition and its relationship to the judgement at hand.
These companies are making their programming appear to be worth far more than it really is.
I used to subscribe to one of these services. Got the dish, wired my home, basically did the whole bit. Picture was nice, but there was a problem
150 channels plus premium and STILL NOT A FSCKING THING ON! At $60 - $80 per month US, this was not ok. Every time the value of the bundle drops, they either add more channels, split those they have and add more commercials, or manupulate the bundles in ways that drive more revenue (read require more of our money for the same content) their way.
Went to Radio Shack and got a nice antenna. Funny thing about antennas. They cost about the same as they did years ago and still come in the same boxes. How many different cable / sat devices have to needed to own over the years. Is that cost worth what you received?
Now, I purchase DVD media with the money I used to spend on subscription TV. They must all compete on content value or they don't get my dollars. I don't think most people get as much out of the system as they think. It is packaged and promoted in a way that looks like a good value but really isn't.
I purchase a very small percentage of what is produced each year. I just might buy more if they worked harder to provide it. I might even double what I spend now if what I want is easy to get, but its not. To me, this means that most of what we are getting via subscription programming is almost worthless.
If it were really that good, I would pay, but it's not.
These companies see *everyone* as a customer, yet do not have to compete on almost any basis for their wares. Subscription programming used to be a big deal when it was started. Many folks could not get any decent broadcast content; others wanted the premium content and were willing to pay. Early systems required infrastructure, equipment and other things that justify the price.
Congress is wanting to basically kill broadcast TV so they can hand even more money to these companies via the spectrum; at our expense no less.
So, where is the competition? It's not like we have a lot of satellite providers. Kind of hard to put up that many units. Cable is granted a monopoly. Lets say you manage to sell me on competition; that it exists, not the concept. How can we evaluate the worth of the programming?
They do not sell per channel, or per use (other than insane PPV.) What if I want to purchase some programming from them. Maybe Sci-fi, Food Network, HBO, Showtime and a couple of others I see value in. Can I pay 29.95? No. Why not?
Do we know how much we have paid for infrastructure? What are the costs there? Is it being built out or maintained? How long do they get to keep what is in the public interests?
The whole thing looks to be nothing more than a shell game. At least when I purchase media, I have some understanding of its true cost and some understanding of its relative worth.
I can know this worth because there are many suppliers, I know because I can resell the content to others and see what they are willing to pay. Try taking a lame DVD to a swap shop. They will almost make you pay to get them to take it off your hands.
I can produce these things myself and understand the costs from that angle if I want. (Though they *really* don't want that to happen --and for good reason.)
In short, any number these guys propose is simply an indication of their wants, not their needs and that is a problem in the judgement of this case.
I can clearly understand the crime of selling decryption devices for paid programming services. I have problems with the nature of the services, but the crime is clear. I don't understand the result of the information crime however. I just cannot assess the value of the damage to the public and the sat companies. Any court that takes their numbers on their merits is wrong on moral
Blogging because I can...
I know Stephen Frazier. Worked with him at Intel in Folsom..way back in 2000/2001.
/. readers wouldn't go and post sales ads in Popular Science or field sales calls over your cell phone or from their personal residence. Stephen did... and more than a few people told him that he should be more careful... but the guy was fearless and thought he could outwit the Feds. Pretty hard to beat the boys if you wave a flag in front of their noses :)
The articles I've read about this case have been killing me! The Feds made the remark that he's "well known" in the "World Hacker" community. LOL! Stephen is an excellent salesman and an excellent con-man..a hacker he isn't. Too funny... the Feds will exagerate anything if they can spread some fear or make themselves look good.
Nice guy.. just not too bright in the "discretion" department. He would LOVE to see that he's made it to Slashdot!
Speaking of Slashdot... I bet at least half of all Slashdot readers could reverse engineer the H cards like Stephen did. It's pretty simple... Of course, I bet 99% of that half of