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..."

17 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      No, but sometimes they do issue more than one death sentence. I guess they do that just in case being dead once already isn't enough.

    2. Re:too harsh by Chemical · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously. Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?

    3. Re:too harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. Re:too harsh by aeryn_sunn · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

  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 walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Funny

      >>There is something severely wrong about financially crippling somebody for life..

      I take it you're not familiar with divorce settlements?

  3. remember... by bman08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  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.
    1. Re:Land of the free? by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Frazier will have to pay $500 a month for the next 30,000 years

      Man this dude's gonna be pissed when we discover the secret to immortality in 50 years time!

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  5. Re:From the article by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Interesting
    " 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.

    Weasel maths, I'm guessing.

    Indeed. The $4Billion they calculate is based on what it would cost those 3 million people to subscribe to every single channel available, which is what those people are supposedly watching. At least they're not adding in what it would cost to purchase every single pay-per-view (even the ones running concurrently), like they do when asking for damages in court. Nice logical rationale: "if we don't know what they watched, we must assume they watched everything-- at the same time"

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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