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..."

19 of 734 comments (clear)

  1. too harsh by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That value is based on estimated loses DirectTV and Echostar may have incurred had Frazier been able to sell his devices.

    they don't put people to death for attempted murder, do they? that seems a little harsh to me.

    1. Re:too harsh by brianosaurus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know if that's a fair comparison. My understanding was that those who incarcerated Mitnick were ignorant of his capabilities and were afraid he could launch nuclear missles (or some ridiculous load of crap) if they gave him access to a touch-tone phone. They were used to murderers and stuff, but hackers were an unknown, and they feared the unknown.

      In this case, there was a trial, and the guy was planning to sell a device. Maybe what he was doing was illegal, and maybe he deserves a jail sentence.

      But the court stopped him before any damages were incurred. The actual damages to the satellite companies is zero. Being ordered to pay $180 million in "potential damages" is absurd.

      --
      blog
    2. Re:too harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry. Read the article.

      A man who schemed to steal satellite television signals now has something much bigger than a cable bill to pay -- a whopping $180 million restitution order on which he is to make $500 monthly payments.

      He's not being charged the full $180 million (which is probably excessive, but it really doesn't matter) he's being charged $500 a month for life. That charge really isn't inflated.

      It costs Dish Networks around $500 to aquire a single new customer. That $500 represents the cost of advertising, instalation (which is done for free), discounts on equipment, and other incentives. Since most Dish and DirecTV plans involve your ownership of the equipment once you're on the plan the companies have no way to recoup that cost if you can pirate the signal.

      This guy is being charged the rather reasonable amount of $500. If that means his device ends up being used by one new Dish or DirecTV customer every month, they will break even.

      He got off easy.

      As a disclaimer, I am currently an employee of Echostar Dish Networks. As my views are not necessarily those of my employer I am posting this anonymously.

    3. Re:too harsh by brianosaurus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They caught the guy before the devices were delivered. There will be ZERO people using his device every month. There will be ZERO dollars lost because of people using his device instead of buying legitimately.

      And a common theory is that the people who would have used that device will find alternatives and wouldn't have signed up with Dish/DirectTV anyway. Granted, that's just speculation, but then again so is their $900million number.

      And while he won't ever actually pay out $180 million at $500/month, its still on the books. It still sets a ridiculous precedent, and might encourage other industries to use this sort of business model.

      --
      blog
    4. Re:too harsh by Azureflare · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Welcome to the world of Pre-Crime!

      Where you get punished for doing things you MIGHT have done, if the superior police force hadn't nabbed you before your little malicious ideas came to fruition!

      100% Accurate!

      Gah, it's always scary when a movie plot comes true in real life....

      OK So maybe the guy "deserved" to get punished, because he was "intentionally" building a device that was designed to "hack" into signals, but the fact is he's being held accountable for things that never happened, except in The Magical Fairyland of DirectTV's wild imagination.

    5. Re:too harsh by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh wow, planning on selling devices. Thats surely worth $180million.

      I know, lets send the cops out, and just give out speeding and parking tickets at random. 'cause, everyone was planning on speeding that day, and everyone will at some time park illegally.

      You'll be first in line to pay your thoughtcrime fines right?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:too harsh by AntiTuX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't agree. I work my ass off now as a cable guy, and with my bills, I *KNOW* I couldn't afford 500 bucks a month. On top of that, being as he'll officially be a FELON, he'll never be able to get a tech job again at a large company, especially if they do any business with the government.

      It's *REALLY* fucking difficult to pay 500 bucks a month on top of rent, bills, etc., when all you have is a job at mcdonalds.

      I find that cruel, and excessive.

  2. punishment fitting the crime by pytheron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is something severely wrong about financially crippling somebody for life.. it is just totally out of proportion. Someone needs to pass round the smelling salts to the judges.

    --
    "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
    1. Re:punishment fitting the crime by aronc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Crippling? It's $500 a month. Chump change.

      Maybe for you in your nice cushy job, but some of us barely make that at all much less being able to pay bills/buy food/etc after that. Think before you speak asswipe, there are people a lot worse off than you and if 500 a month is change for you there's a lot of us.

      Maybe this'll make people think before they steal IP in future.

      Except he didn't steal any IP, nor did he even plan to. He had plans to potentially release a device that potentially allowed others to steal access to satellite TV. Maybe we should just go ahead and declare marshal law since everyone could potentially be a murderer.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
  3. remember... by bman08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was a kid you actually had to commit a crime before arrest, trial and conviction.

    1. Re:remember... by Zebbers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      attempted _____ is in itself a crime but almost ALWAYS have a lot less strigent sentencing requirements. This shit is crazy.

      Corporations are getting out of fucking hand.

  4. Land of the free? by incom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO having to pay that money indefinately is essentially slavery, and any sane person would flee to another country to regain thier freedom.

    --
    True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  5. Re:To a Certain Extent It Makes Sense by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Had this information got free the satallite providers could have lost a *lot* of money.

    Did the information get free? Did the [sarcasm]poor corporations[/sarcasm] lose a lot of money? You don't put people to death if they don't actually kill someone. similarly, you ought not be fined for money that could have been lost, but wasn't.

    food for thought: cable descramblers aren't that hard to come by, yet cable companies, cable networks, etc. seem to be doing just fine. I doubt that had this information gotten out that it would have spelled the end of DirecTV, or even cost them that much.

  6. From the article by guidemaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " An estimated 3 million people illegally watch satellite television using devices that unscramble satellite TV signals. The industry estimates it loses $4 billion a year in revenue."

    Is that right? Satellite TV costs well over $1000 a year? No wonder people don't want to pay for it.

    They can't possibly be worried about lost ad revenue, because those people are all watching the ads.

    Weasel maths, I'm guessing.

    1. Re:From the article by DragonPup · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it does cause some financial damage reguardless. See, illegal hookups, especially from the tap(where the drop starts from at the pole, or sometimes inside a large building) tends to be very shoddy. Then it starts leaking signal. That's bad cause leaked cable signal can interfere with a lot of very important things. Things like police radio, or in very severe cases, it could cause some interference with air traffic control systems if it is near an airport. So the cable company must actual spend time and money checking for leakage and correcting it. There'd be a lot less leakage without cable theft.

      Another way it can cause damage is black box descramblers. They got a nasty habit of backfeeding signal up the drop. That can cause reception problems for everything feeding out of the tap(taps in boston tend to serve roughly 8 residences/tap. Though larger taps do exist). Once people start to complain of reception problems(ghosting and humbars are common), cable company rolls out a tech to fix it. Sending techs out is not free. :p

      -Henry

      --
      "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
  7. Re:Wasn't smart enough. by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And why shouldn't he? DirectTV is beaming their signal into your brain at this very moment. Why should it be illegal to perform a mathematical transform on the EM passing through your own head?

  8. Wrong priorities by pchown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously Frazier has been given a sentence which is outrageously out of proportion to his crimes. But let's think about things from a different point of view...

    I live in an area which has its share of crime. Not crime like Frazier's, ordinary crime like vandalism, graffiti, burglaries and so on. The police are always hugely overstretched in trying to respond to these things. Now house burglaries cause far more distress than anything that Frazier did. Vandalism and the like take far more out of a neighbourhood than anything Frazier did.

    Yet, Frazier is worthy of some massive surveillance operation. We are entitled to ask why limited police resources were used in this way.

  9. Seriously People by drwav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, let's forget about the $500/month payment and just focus on the FIVE YEARS in prison for a crime he never actually committed. To top it all off, this wasn't even a serious crime; it was IP infringement, which is already a sketchy area to begin with.

    Every time something like this happens, I always see a few people that say "good, they broke the law, they got their punishment", well I have a little something called "empathy".

    Put yourself in their shoes, would you like it if you were sent to federal prison for five years just because you might have cut into the profits of an already greedy and overpaid corporation? You need to put this in perspective, people charged with assault and other various violent crimes get off easier than this. This is complete and total bullshit and you people are just going to sit there and not only take it, but praise the government for brining another "dangerous criminal" to justice. Let me make it absolutely clear that the he didn't actually do anything, he was charged with conspiracy to do something.

    Doesn't the amount of power that corporations are demonstrating they have SCARE YOU at all? Or are you just to completely oblivious to the world around you?

  10. Re:The punishment is valid by blakestah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? I think there is a valid bit of constitutional law here.

    Who owns the electro-magnetic fields in my house? Does DirectTV own them, or may I sample them freely?

    Now, I respect the rights of DirecTV to make money by selling cable through the airwaves, but I have a real problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot do with EMFs someone else is beaming into my house.