Slashdot Mirror
EFF Coordinates Fight Against DirecTV
wumarkus420 writes "In response to recent lawsuits filed by DirecTV against purchasers of smartcard equipment, the EFF and Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society have announced a new site devoted to the legal fight against DirecTV's aggressions. Hopefully, this new site will provide innocent consumers that have been threatened under the veil of the DMCA with professional legal advice and information."
I'm wondering if I bought one of these now would it still attract the attention of dtv? I used to be one of their customers, and I could use a good fight right now...
In this case I can't buy the "substantial non-infringing use" argument, as having dabbled in satellite technology for a while, I know how huge the market is for pirate cards. It was one of the factors in the collapse of ITV Digital in the UK, as half the population of Scotland - where for some reason, this is especially rife - were using bent cards.
There also used to be a huge trade in D2MAC cards and PC-connected EEPROM programmers so people in the UK could get free Swedish pr0n and Premiership soccer games on Norwegian TV.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Once again another reason to get rid of the DMCA. DirecTV should at least clarify their position (unless they are painting everyone with the same brush). Another great kick from coporate America
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I think that DirecTV's case against the modders is EFF'in' bullshit.
Once you buy hardware, you own it.
That may not be the case with copyright protected content, but just as you are authorized to privately show a DVD you own as many times as you want to (.. for now), you can privately hack your hardware any way you want to! Sealand, anyone? Or perhaps China. Australia would be good, except they just reversed their earlier decision and made selling mod-chips illegal again. However, it is still legal to install them over there!
3. If you currently subscribe to DirecTV, don't change a thing. A company official has testified that a sudden termination or change in service spells likely guilt in DirecTV's eyes, and a judge may see this logic.
omg what a great business model, sue people for cancelling service to prevent people who will quit because they don't like their business practices.
and wtf does "sudden" mean:
"hello I'd like to stop subscibing, please phase out all my channels over the next 2 years"
Forgive me if I'm off-topic. I'm glad the EFF has decided to fight this. I remember a while back there was some talk of donating money to the 4 kids involved in legal fights with the RIAA over enhancing the Windows sharing available on their campuses. While donating money to them to recoup their settlements was a novel idea, how about setting up a sort of legal defense fund for similarly accused students for the future. That way some of these cases may actually go to trial, and the absurdity of the DMCA can be tested. Think of it, 60 million ppl use peer to peer. We support artists, just not the cartels that house them now. (Hell, I haven't even used these networks in years, considering all the shit that's put out by the majors, I rely on CDbaby.com to find new music.)It's time to fix the broken state of the law to be more in line with serving the people it was created for.
A friend of mine has operated a website called www.afm.com for quite some time. "AFM" stands for American Flea Market. A little while ago the American Film Marketing Assocation disputed the domain, saying that he was cybersquatting on their trademark. Their complaint filled a four-inch binder. He's operated the domain for several years before hearing from these jokers.
They accused any of everything from kidnapping the Lindbergh baby to crashing those planes into the World Trade Center. Oh, yeah, and Andy had weapons of mass destruction.
My friend is no fool. He fought the dispute tooth and nail, without any legal representation - and won, he got to keep his domain. But not everyone has been so lucky.
Andy put up a site about it called www.ShameOnTheAFMA.com, which has some resources that others could use to defend their domains.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
The issue here is that DirecTV seems to be hassling people who have the ability to steal programming, whether they actually are or not. Which is, I think you'll agree, pretty scary.
Victor Hugo said, back in 1831/1832, that the printing press killed architecture, by taking away part of what architectural edifices were about (telling a story, imposing a theme, etc). Books lasted longer, could be more widely diffused, and were not subject to being rebuilt and demolished in the same ways (amongst other things, for more read "Ceci tuera cela" in "Notre Dame de Paris").
The Internet is now killing all other media, because it is at once all media, and is the same thing to all people, rather like the book was more accessible than the edifice as Victor Hugo observed had happened from the 15th century onwards*.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, ITV Digital went down due to piracy. Canal Horizons, the Moroccan digital TV unit, also went down due to piracy. Not that people were pirating their signal, they were pirating French digital TV instead ;-)
All this leads us to the logicial conclusion that paying for recorded content is going to be a harder and harder thing to enforce, whatever the medium. Which is great, in my opinion. It might bring back live entertainment, something which was originally killed by the recorded work. People moan about how piracy is killing CDs, DVDs and so on - but the real artists who could really perform live lost a livelihood to recorded works. Maybe they will see a renaissance, which would be much more democratic than some big-ass company making all the $$$ for a recording.
I can't help feeling that content is priced too high. Why should "Friends" actors make a million bucks an episode? Why should Arnold Schwarzenegger make so much? Careful editing and effects respectively make these two vehicles much more successful than the actual TALENT (or lack of) of the actors.
The re-democratisation of content is perhaps happening today. And live shows might perhaps make a comeback. I'd much rather hear a live show in a bar (sometimes for like $5 and maybe I'll leave a tip for the band or buy their self-marketed CD) than pay $15 for recorded works of some pimped singer who actually can't play an instrument or write anything, just has a nice voice _once it is processed_ ...
DirecTV, indeed TV in general, had it coming to them. Even their good content is becoming diluted by the sheer volume of crap out there, and indeed the success of mediocre vehicles like recent Friends, Simpsons and others just goes to show that the public is less and less able to find something good to watch (or listen to). People probably have a strong urge to pirate because it is quite frankly not worth the subscription fee most of the time. And, Internet is already giving us content on demand, including movies, on the wrong side of the law, while conventional media is actually playing catchup. Time to start seeing this for what it is, a paradigm shift for the 21st century.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
I bought a smart card programmer for a friend overseas and had it delivered to my fathers address. My dad was a huge fan of Direct TV (bunch of dishes, always paid his bill) until they started threatening him with a lawsuit.
Now he is a fan of Dish Network...
" People probably have a strong urge to pirate because it is quite frankly not worth the subscription fee most of the time"
These people were paying $30 a pop for the new card software images to get every channel. They could have paid $20 to get the standard 300 channels. Obviously they were just greedy and wanted HBO and the skin channels for free.
$30 for a card update? That's high too. Wasn't like that in Morocco ($2 an update). Did the update last over a month?
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
DirecTV is suing Canadian citizens and attempting to disrupt information websites (presumably under the guise of the DMCA). What interesting about this is that DirecTV has no jurisdiction in Canada, as they have no presence there (they are not licensed to broadcast into Canada, which is what started this whole mess in the first place). Also, the DMCA does not apply to non-US citizens (although we've seen how well that's been applied in the Sklyarov case).
Right or wrong about the genesis of their actions (some folks really are intercepting DirecTV signal), DTV is just flat wrong about how they prosecute their case and need to be reigned back in.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
The Dish Network is going to soon come out with the DishPVR 921, a PVR that handles HDTV and *should* save the MPEG stream straight from the dish to the disk.
Yes, DirecTV is coming out with one too, and theirs is a joint venture with TiVo.
But you'll want Dish for the pr0n.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
It doesn't really. It presupposes that when polled, you'll respond "I use Photoshop," which means some company somewhere is that much more likely to buy copies because it's the market leader. Marketshare is immensely valuable, however it's obtained.
..but fuck off.
My Soyo Dragon Plus motherboard came with a Smartcard reader.
You're insisting that I must be pirating DirectTV because I bought a high-quality motherboard that came with a metric arseload of extras bundled in?
Informative? Your post is a troll, nothing more, nothing less.
They could have paid $40 _per month_ for the lowest service instead of paying $30 a pop (i'm not even sure it costs that much). It's very economical to pirate, not that I do it of course.
In all honesty I would boycott DTV for this, but Dish network isn't available in my area, and Comcast is much more expensive.
bananas like monkeys.
This is a good example of the lack of anonymity that we have as consumers on the internet. Had these people been able to purchase their products anonymously, this sort of abuse wouldn't be possible.
If the government were to try a stunt like this, it would be against the constitution's "ex post facto" rules. But instead, we are moving toward a society that's "laws" are defined by corporate entities.
Though we loathe the idea of the government installing cameras and watching us, bugging our phones, reading our e-mail, record our purchase transactions, and track our movements, we allow corporations to do it all the time. This is already bad enough, but if we allow the government to centralize these corporate databases, then by default, we will have allowed the frightening world of 1984 to exist.
Why should Arnold Schwarzenegger make so much?
Because he's the Governator!
bananas like monkeys.
...but if we did, we wouldn't have locks on our doors, we wouldn't have home and car alarm systems, and we wouldn't need to waste all the time, money, and effort required to thwart thieves.
In a sense, the thieves are costing us time and money wether or not they are successful.
The same applies to encryption or cable, satellite, wireless, wired, whatever. If the companies didn't have to spend all the money in development and licensing of encryption technology, the end users could benefit financially. Hey, if they merely split the difference, consumers and the companies could both be better off financially.
So, we don't live in a Utopia - but I find it hard to blame the companies if someone is illegally unencrypting their signals.
That said, if there are non-infringing uses for a technology, I also find it hard to accept a total crackdown on that technology instead of the people who are actually using it to violate the law.
Kind of like how the MPAA would love to see mp3s just disappear and, in fact, how some ISPs prohibit mp3s on your personal websites. Or how bots can find the words "pac" and "man" embedded in a filename and send off a cease and decist letter.
The whole point of my rambling is that I hate thieves (mainly of physical property, but others too) because they make life difficult for EVERYONE, not just the companies they are attacking. At the very least, think of this - you are paying for the hardware and licensing fees to unscramble the content on the DVDS in every DVD player you buy. When you buy a DVD you are also paying for the technology to scramble it. Kind of sucks, doesn't it?
When you get satellite TV, you are paying for the technology to scramble and unscramble it, too, and for the hardware to do it, and for the periodic updates to thwart thieves. If you are an honest, paying customer, you get screwed the worst (which reminds me of copy protection on software, too).
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Inventors for all practical purposes now means corporate entities, because if they can ban the tools required to investigate and experiment with technology, then the era of the individual inventor is over. The ability of corporations to stifle scientific investigation now rivals that of the Inquisition.
Now the question isn't "what can I invent?", but "can I afford a lawyer to defend my right to invent?"
I actually feel physically sick.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
They get paid that much because people are willing to pay that much. Would "Friends" be as popular if Jennifer and Courtney left? It might be just as good, but people are accusomed to the characters. Friends is a cash cow for the network, if they weren't making enough on it, they wouldn't be paying the actors that much.
If they were getting beans, I could turn around and ask why you thought the network should make so much money off the work of the actors. Same thing with sports and the outrageous contracts some of these guys get - but if they bring in the viewers, then they are worth it.
Sorry, don't want to belittle your whole argument, which makes a lot of sense, it just bothers me when people complain that others make too much money. It's the libertarian in me.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
> half the population of Scotland
A nation the English have treated very well in the last few centuries. No wonder they weren't paying for overpriced satellite services. People with a lower median income than their neighbours will naturally not be as willing to pay as often for disposable entertainment. Blame that for the collapse of ITV rather than the piracy itself. It's not like most of those people would have actually paid for the service even if the piracy weren't relatively easy.
Jeez, where do I start? Where are you getting your in-depth knowledge of the relationship between Scotland and England from? Braveheart and Rob Roy? Have you even been to Britain?
"Lower median income than their neighbours"? Do you have any idea about how affluent cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh are compared to their counterparts in the north of England, say Newcastle, Sunderland and Carlisle? Have you even heard of Carlisle?
Anyone reading your post is left with the impression that the relationship between Scotland and England is like the relationship between Israel and the West Bank/Gaza Strip. The fact is, apart from a few minor differences, most of which favour the average Scotsman rather than the average Englishman (such as university education funding, legal procedures and house buying - all superior in Scotland) there are few differences between living in England and living in Scotland.
Next time, before you open your mouth about other cultures and societies, please have a clue about what you're talking about. It might help you come across as intelligent rather than stupid.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Just goes to show freedom is only gained by trampling the freedoms of others.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
What I'm also getting at is that money is being even more unfairly distributed in the global market, when stars really can attract money like magnets because of the worldwide audience they have, and most of the rest of it stays in the hands of Fox. Yet much other entertainment does not get aired (or never sees primetime) because of the massive hyping of these shows, which seem to be able to survive beyond their initial great episodes, on and on and on.
In an ultimate capitalist model, those who sell most get most, the actors are fairly paid, etc... but somewhere along the line viewers will watch the best of a bad bunch of primetime viewing, and of course as soon as success happens, these shows will be pushed to their limits, to the detriment of other more innovative stuff.
Still, it is the law of the market, so you're right. Just personally I think somehow that wealth should be better redistributed maybe. I can't come up with a good suggestion as to what I might really be getting at though. Perhaps that the plethora of content out there only serves to obscure rare treasures, and pinpoint those shows that networks push hardest, where they must but meet a minimum of success in order to become the (sub)standard primetime fare for years.
The mere fact that the actors all privately stated that they didn't really want to go on, but had "one last go at it" and had to get paid big to do it, tends to make me reflect that even they were jaded with the format.
Cheers for your comment, and fair point.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
No. 3 FBI agents posing as "ragheads" entrapped an arms dealer by pretending to want to blow up air force one. It's different see.
ITV Digital went down due to piracy.
Piracy may have been a factor, but there were many more things wrong with that business than the fact that their encryption could be easily broken.
The coverage from their transmitters was patchy; the technical quality of the broadcasts was poor (gross MPEG artefacts all over the screen); the software on the set-top boxes was buggy; they had no compelling content that couldn't be gotten elsewhere for the same or less cost; they paid way over the odds for sports rights, and so on and so on.
I don't think they would have survived even if there had been no viewing card piracy
.
SCO should be suing DirecTV right about now (or at least soon). Why is this post on topic?
well, DTV has two units, the Tivo and the UTV, both of which run Linux.
so DTV is "pirating" SCOs software (cough).
bah to those who can't see the humor in the above, but at least it's nice to see them finally get under fire from someone.
I know many people who are legit smartcard developers, some for RSA, some for microsoft, etc, who all get letters from DTV about lawsuits. What the hell is this all about?
Heck, there's a guy in town running a photocopy center (you know the kind) using smartcard technology who's getting sued.... Uhm... what the hell?
btw dtv has lost a few of the suits lately, seems some of the judges are starting to get pissed off about their antics.
I don't know for sure if this is the same in the US (I think is), but in Canada it is perfectly legal to listen in on a private conversation whose radio waves enter your property (cell phone, cordless phone, baby monitor, whatever) -- as long as you neither use that information for personal gain nor divulge it to a third party.
Strange law, yes, pretty reasonable? I think so.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
I'm surprised the American Federation of Musicians, commonly known as the AFM, didn't come after him.. but they tend to be a more sensible organization. I'm surprised the AFMA is claiming the letters AFM as their trademark, when clearly it belongs to... the AFM.
-- AFM local ?? Shit, I can't remember.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
"...so strict are these statutes that Congress has made mere posession of signal theft equipment an offense under federal law. See 18 U.S.C. 2512(1)b"
really, the united states congress... guardians of freedom who recently supported a war to defend liberty... do you really expect me to believe that the united states congress would pass a law making it a crime for citizens to posess a technical device which could be used for illegal purposes.... even if they do not use the device themselves for illegal purposes.
say it isn't so.
Sec. 2512. - Manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices prohibited (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who intentionally - (b) manufactures, assembles, possesses , or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications , and that such device or any component thereof has been or will be sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
damn. it's true.
keep voting republican and this is what you get.
So which Democrats voted against the DMCA anyway? I mean looking up the senate vote it looked like the ratio was 99 - 0. I could be mistaken of course.
Well, I will agree with you that the entertainment industry is a money machine that doesn't care about quality of content, and will push an inferior product if they feel they can make the most profit from it.
That's why I don't watch TV regularly, not even the Simpsons anymore (and believe me, I'm as big a fan as anybody, but when I miss it I'm not particularly bothered).
Still, it's hard to fault them - it IS a business afterall. While the distribution of wealth may seem unfair, it's one of those things that, I think, make an individual work harder to gain some of it.
Not everyone's goal is merely wealth. It's not the money, per se, I've always said that if I was a millionaire I'd still drive a Honda or Toyota. I'd have a nicer house, but I wouldn't have a "mansion". I'd pay someone to cut the grass so I could spend my leisure time with my family.
Oh well, I could go on and on about it. You may be inspired by a socialist state, and in some aspects it really sounds like a nice idea, but the more I think about it, the more I realize it doesn't make sense. Thomas Sowell said "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
Well, don't want to turn this into a political rant. Thanks for the reply.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Oo, I have - it's next to Chelmsford, I drive through it on my way to Bedford.
Wait - you meant in Britain, right? Oops. Apparently when it came to naming the towns in Massachusetts the colonists weren't feeling too creative. Now if you don't mind, I need to leave for Worcester to handle some college issues...
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
You do not want to do that! These guys are bloodthirsty villans. I was served for a summons to Federal Court over a month and a half ago. I have been in contact with the EFF for a while now, see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71490&cid=6465 738 . . . . but as much as they want to help, they cannot afford to represent all of us in court. Thus, you end up in the same boat i am in. . . . a sinking one. . . . .
I Was contacted yesterday to see if i wanted to pay them off. . . . and i was told that all they wanted was 3 months of my pay-checks upfront, and half of the money i make for 6 months. . . I have a wife and 2 children, we can't live up to there demands and eat. . . . So, its off to the slaughter I go. . . . . Alone. . . . .
The web site mentions the rather strange fact that "intercepting satellite signals" is illegal. This may be a bit off topic, but it seems to me that this is very strange. Is it illegal to purchase or build your own radio receiver which will receive radio wave signals that are constantly broadcast into your home ? Of course not. Why then is it that when a satellite company broadcasts signals into my home, it is illegal for me to "intercept" those signals. Do they "own" the signal ? If so and if they don't want me to recieve their signal if I am not paying for it then why are they broadcasting it into my home? Can I sue them for invading my privacy by boradcasting signals into my home that I do not want to receive? I also find the use of the term "intercept" to be strange much the same way it is incorrect so say that making a copy of copyrighted software is "stealing". Just as copying software is not really "stealing" , it's "copying" so it is also true that when a satellite signal enters my home I am not "intercepting" it (because if I am , then who is it intended for ? As far as I know there is no one living underground below me), but rather I am "receiving" it, and it was the satellite company that sent it to me in the first place, even if I do not pay for it or ask for it. If I have the capability to build my own satellite reciever and decode the signals that are being sent into my home I see no reason why I should not be allowed to do so.
As I noted in another discussion, the problem is that this litigation is too damn cheap. It is like SPAM, in htat it costs the relatively nothing to file these lawsuits, but costs those that have to respond a lot to respond. Even if you win, you end up owing. So, what do you do? If you are "wise" you fold. And they can cite another win against a nasty pirate.
Now, if we were in an English-style, "loser pays", system then we would be able to fight this, win, and stick the bill to DirectTV. You can bet that if they faced the cost of fighting these suits on both sides, that they would quickly reevaluate their strategy.
So, my solution to two major problems (obnoxious litigation and SPAM) is to simple: increase the cost to initating the activity!
i had some problems with the link to my original post. . . so here it is . . . . . Yes, I have been served with papers, and trust me. . . this whole thing sucks. I was served at work, where i am a unofficial IT guy, with my fellow co-workers looking on as if i were a dangerous criminal. (Embarassing does not even begin to explain the feeling.) My first reaction was, WTF is this? I have never been sued before, i have never been in any kind of trouble before, hell, i have not had a speeding ticket in over 10 years. . . . but low and behold, here was a document stating that i am being sued for $120,000 by a company that i have been a long standing customer with for many years. As i read on, i found out that it was for a Smart Card Programmer. Once again that WTF feeling came back. . . . I purchased this equipment over 2 years ago for a security project that never got off of the ground. A company that i worked for wanted a better way to keep control over who used the company network, i found some info on smart cards, did a search for "smart card programmer" and purchased the cheapest unit i could find. (about $160 if memory serves me correctly), Only to find out that it would not work for what i wanted to do. And now im being sued! And as i said earlier, i am a DTV customer, have been for 6 years. If i were going to hack TV cards, you would think that i would do mine first! Just to make one thing clear, I am a poor guy, And as a poor guy, there are not many options for me to take. Anyway, i dont want to rant about this, however i believe that it is a great injustice. This is just extortion, plain and simple. I was told that i could settle for $4,500 before i went to court, or $10,000 after the court process had began. Alternatively, i could fight it, and the cheapest lawyer would be on the average of $15,000 by the time it is all over. Obviously, not a "poor boy" option. And since it is a civil case, i am not entitled to a court appointed lawyer. So the only option left for me is to fight it myself. Which, if any of you have ever looked into the paperwork involved in a Federal Civil Case, looks like i have just over a snowball's chance in hell. So if i go to court and loose, by law, they can take what little i have, and then some. One option that they could take is garnishment, and being that this is a Lawsuit for damages, they could take a chunk of my pay check for the next 25 years! I only make $12 an hour now, and have a wife and 2 kids, so this is not a good thing for a person who is just barely making it. This Lawsuit is designed to crush people like me so that people who have the money to pay the ransom, will do so.
Has there been any comment from the manufacturers and/or retailers of smart card equipment? DirecTV is presumably having an adverse effect on their sales, not to mention their reputations, given that they're suing thousands of people just for making a purchase.
Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
Do you really feel that "it IS a business, afterall" serves as much of an excuse for anything?
It neither denegrates the good nor exculpates the evil that is done. I need to eat just as much as any business does, but this doesn't mean that I don't practice "right livlihood". Perhaps not perfectly, but I try. If a business doesn't try, then I wonder if having it exist is a net good.
Businesses are social constructs. If they aren't good for the society, then the society should disband them. But I will admit that saying society "should" disband them is a bit tricky. And that evaluating their social good has many subjective elements. So. That means the problem is complicated. But being a business is, in and of itself, no justification for anything.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well, I may have used the phrase "it is a business, afterall" pretty flippantly, but the fact is that, as long as they are not making their profit through force or fraud, then it's society itself that is supporting it. Perhaps the crap the entertainment industry doles out sucks, but "society" are the people paying for it and encouraging it.
The only way to stop it would be to have a small group or person decide if the business is socially acceptable. I don't (and can't) believe that's what you'd want. So, in other words, as long as nothing illegal is going on, society is already deciding what is acceptable and what will be profitable for a business.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This site provides full disclosure of exploits that allow an attacker to "hijack" your DirecTV, cancel your service, change your service options, view information about the equipment you have in your home, and so on. DTV was notified of this back in April, but they haven't done a damn thing about it since.
I use it for hacking the new touchscreen voting machines at my local polling place. If it's not legal to rig an election than I don't know what is.
It seems like everyone on this site is completely ignorant.
Their may be a few people who own this equipment who were not using it illegally, and to you I wish good luck and I sincerely hope you find a way to get out of this mess.
Anyone who was using this equipment to steal DirecTV I have no sympathy for however. Digital stealing may not be as bad as stealing in the real world (if you have 2 apples and I take one, you only have one left. If this were software however, you would still have 2), but it is still theft because it de-values the source. A source that many people put money, and effort into building and maintaining. How much it de-values the source depends upon how efficient the theft is (p2p is very efficient. This is much less).
I have a friend with this setup. He offered it to me, and I turned him down. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.
hard core geek-ware
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/glb/Form_Feedback.js p
c'mon people... let's all flood their website with complaints, tell them you're considering getting a different service or were going to get DirecTV until you heard about how they're indiscriminantly suing everyone who buys smart card readers, including legitimate engineers and students doing research!
Do it!
The big question, of course, is "did you actually pirate direcTV?" if you did then I guess you're screwed and it's too bad for your family. If you didn't then why are you paying them off? Go to the local news agency and tell them your story - a fat helping of bad TV publicity has a way of changing these things pretty quick.
I say this almost any time the DMCA comes up, and it's always the same...
;)
Any kind of encryption that is usable in cheap set-top boxes (read: simple enough) can be cracked by the real pirates easily. All that these encryption systems do is make fair use a real pain in the ass.
-END POST CONTENT-
-BEGIN TAUNT TO DTV-
Hey DirecTV! I have 3 DTV recievers and a smart card device! Go ahead, sue me you assholes. I use the smart card device (which came built in to my Acer C100 Tablet PC) for authentication and security in my network. I am watching History Channel on DTV right now, and there is nothing you can do about it. All 3 recievers are paid for and I currently subscribe to Total Choice w/ Local Channels and HDTV (not the new Sat-C pack, just HDNET).
But, as you seem to believe that legit users of smart cards are criminals, go ahead and sue me.
DTV: Email me using the address listed above if ya want to sue...
Try me! I'm ready with a defamation countersuit!
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
10 000 000 people have smart card reader/writers that they bought from DirecTV, What the hell do they think that little card slot is on the back of the reciever... :)
I find it hard to believe that DirecTV thinks that the only use for the Smart Cards is to steal satellite TV, when the cards are quickly growing in use on computer networks as a means of user login and digital signatures. In fact the DoD has acquired 2.4 million Common Access Cards (Modified Smart Cards that include a photo ID on the card) that are used on DoD computer networks. (Ref: Government Computer News, Vol 22 Num 14)
Don't suppose any of you were around when party lines were the norm for phones?
Didn't think so.
if your story is true, you've actually been served papers etc, then you have a lot of low cost/free options.
1st. do you live near a major city? if yes, find out what law schools are in the city. most should have legal clinics. They give you free legal adivce and may be able to find someone to help you.
2nd. if you will prepare your own defense, hire a law student who has taken or is taking a class on IP law to give you the low down. cheaper than a lawyer, will know the basic info.
3rd. friends and relatives maybe lawyers- ask them for advice.
4th. go public. tell your story to anyone who will listen. news media, college papers, anyone. DTV has a namebrand to uphold.
best of luck to you.
1) File an answer and deny the allegations that are not true. Admit the ones that are true. If you have any AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES , like part of the statute that says "it shall not be a violation of this section if [blank]" you must stat them in your answer such as if the statute says "this section shall not apply to use or possession by persons utilizing the card solely for use in [blank]" you need to state in your answer that you were doing exactly that.
...]. Plaintiff has not even alleged [xxxxxx] and thus their Complaint fails to properly state a claim.
2) Look up the law they are suing you under, and look at each specific "element" that is necessary for them to prove to win.
3) If they did not allege all the correct elements in their complaint (assuming at this state that EVERYTHING they say in the complaint is true at this state of the game), you file a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim" under rule 12(b)(6). There are many examples on the web. You state in the motion that "A claim under [statute] requires the elements of [1, 2, 3, 4
4) if they properly alleged all the elements (they usually do) you don't get anywhere by filing a motion to dismiss. Instead file a "Motion for Summary Judgment" under rule 56. In it, you set out numbered statement of FACT (not opinion) and you MUST have a document or affidavit that supports each statement of FACT.
To respond to your motion, they must ALSO come up with hard FACTS and the EVIDENCE to back them up. In a motion for summary judgement, all FACTS you state and support with an affidavit or document, are ASSUMED TO BE TRUE by the court for that motion and it is THE OTHER PARTY'S BURDEN to find evidence and PRODUCE it to rebut them.
Most cases that do not settle are decided fairly early with either a Motion to Dismiss or a Motion for Summary Judgment.
For example, if the statute requires "intent" to use the card for unauthorized interception, the motion may be something like:
Defendant moves the Court to Grant Summary Judgment" pursuant to Rule 56 FCRP on the grounds that:
1. The card was purchased on [date] from [vendor] for [purpose].
2. At that time I was employed by [company] and my job included evaluating methods of security analysis for such and such project, and smart cards of the type I purchased were one such technology evaluated.
3. The card was purchased in my role as employee of [company] and used solely for the project [project].
4. The card was stored and used at the facilities of [company] at [address] and no where else at any time.
5. The card was never removed from the premises by me or anyone else.
6. At no time did I use the card, or intent to use the card in any way whatsoever to intercept, acquire, or otherwise use any broadcast or other content of a broadcast medium.
7. The use by me on the project [project] was [blank] [fill in here language that makes your use qualify for an exemption in the statute.
8. Plaintiff secured the names of purchases of these cards from various sellers, and has sued these purchasers without any inquiry whether some have legitimate and perfectly legal uses of the cards.
9. Plaintiff has brought this particular action without any inquiry into the relevant facts that make this possess/purchase by me legal.
Plaintiff requests a hearing on this motion at the earliest convenience. For the reasons state herein and supporting testimony, affidavits, and evidence, Defendant asks that summary judgment in his favor be Granted.
Then include a sworn affidavit that restates each necessary fact, and include documentation (like a copy of a W2 showing employment, etc.) Makes it look better.
You dress nice, and it will probably be heard in chambers by a magistrate judge. Calmly and simply state your case. DON'T get into back and forth with the other guy. Take notes and point out that YOUR affidavit is the only fact that sets out the relevant fact
If you looked around the DirecTVDefense web site, you'd notice a document where an Ohio judge dissmissed (non prejudicially) a bunch of the DTV lawsuits. Apparently DTV was trying to save filing costs by listing many unrelated defendants on one complaint. The judge dismissed all the defendents but the first and basically told DTV to not be so cheap and refile new complaints individually.
What about all these Sun Workstations we have sitting around work with smart card slots in them? Should I alert the corporate atty. to expect notice?
Thank you very much for you advice and your time, this is by far the most logical answer that i have heard, and one that really helps me know what to do next. It is a bit frightning to have a go at this alone, i appriciate all the help that the /. community has given. . . It means alot to have strangers that care. . .
Comment removed based on user account deletion
....In all honesty I would boycott DTV for this, but Dish network isn't available in my area, and Comcast is much more expensive......
Are you not in the continental United States? If so, Dish should be available, just have to find a retailer (Sears, or some local TV/Video retailers)...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
I bought some smart cards for making free phonecalls from payphones hope I don't get sued.
What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
Ok. You do what seems right to you.
To me, it seems right to not patronize businesses that I deem net public evils. This is an imperfect answer as they frequently prevent their competitors from existing via trade practices that I feel are unfair. But if I must either support a villian or do without a toy, I do without the toy.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Sorry I should've been more clear. The Dish satellites are at a different degree, so pointing the satellite dish off the balcony to aim it at the Dish network would be pointing it at a wall, and the apartment complex has rules against sticking them beyond the plane of the balcony.
bananas like monkeys.
Politics can be an ugly game, but I find it's one we ALL need to play.
What we are looking at is nothing new.. The revolution of P2P charing is exacty the same. The one losing always wants to get the point across that they dont like whats going on. But as we have seen in P2P majority rules. Sry I would like to write more but my PPV is comming on and I don't wanna miss it cause there so many other free PPV's on muahaha
I guess if they wanted their information private they wouldn't use wireless phones and 802.11g connections.
they are broadcasting information, why shouldn't someone else listen? [...] not that this idea is perfect, as it makes parabolic and laser mikes alot more acceptable, which I don't like.
There's already a legal test that distinguishes between people using their ears and people using a parabolic microphone. (It appears in some state laws. I don't know if the fed ever ruled on this.):
If a "reasonable and prudent man", in the situation of the eavesdropee, would have a "reasonable expectation" that his conversation would be overheard, it's up to him not to say anything that he doesn't want to show up in court. A nearby undercover cop can testify to anything he hears. If he has a reasonable expectation that he would NOT be overheard (because he can see whether anybody is within normal earshot, or because he's at home), the cops can't use parabolic mike or bug evidence unless they got a warrant to use the devices in advance.
Similarly (and I believe the Supremes did rule on this one) if you toss the incriminating documents in the trash, the cops can dumpster-dive and bust you. If you shred them, the cops don't get to reassemble them and bust you - because you took reasonable precautions and have a reasonable expectation that your discarded papers would be secure.
Unfortunately, the legislatures have recently moved away from this sensible approach, when it involves radio, with such laws as the ban on recievers capable of listening in on analog cellphone calls. (Which is why scanners sold in the US have a blank spot for that part of the band - unless you open 'em up and change the jumpers to tell 'em they were sold somewhere else.)
Before that the rule was "don't DIVULGE directed transmissions". Anybody could listen in to a transmission that was intended to go to a particular party, such as a walkie-talkie conversation, radiophone call, police call, fire dispatch, etc. But you weren't allowed to disclose the CONTENT of such calls to a third party. (And once you'd listened in you knew the transmission was directed.) So you could watch the network feed yourself, or even record it. But couldn't play the tape the neighbors or print a transcript in the newspaper.
But first the cellphone users, used to the idea of phone calls as private, got congress to ban listening to them. Then the entertainment conglomerates got into this "They're stealing our product!" kick, and got congress to ignore the court precents from the last three or so similar episodes (with tape recording, video tape, and the like) and ban listening in on THEM. So the former simple rule, tho still in effect, is not the only limit on these cases.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
And so does just about everyone else on the ship. Even civilian contractors for the DoD have these cards. So, when can I expect the cease and desist letter that demands I turn over all smart cards and related technology in my possession? Do I get to tell them to fuck off since it's illegal to turn my military ID over to anyone else?
Check out the numbers. 9k suspected pirates, 11.6M subscribers. Theft rate: less than 0.1%. Ask any retailer how fscking good that number is. DirecTV has NOTHING to complain about.
I cancelled my subscription. I've been a customer for many years, but never again.
Please, try not to put your foot in your mouth... Either you are deliberately being an ass, or you have missed the blazingly obvious. He wasn't referring to modern Scotland/England. He was referring to the past 5 or 6 centuries, in which English monarchs have sent invading armies north repeatedly to crush the Scots. I don't know how history played out on your planet, but on our's, the English treated the Scots (and the Welsh, and the Irish) quite poorly in the past.
Only on
There you have it. If DirecTV is not licensed to broadcast in Canada, what the hell are their signals doing here, in the air all around me? They're broadcasting whether or not anyone happens to be receiving it. Their signal is passing through my body right now (tree falling in the woods, tree falling in the woods, tree falling in the woods). If I have the brains to build something to demodulate it, why should I be prevented from doing so? If they don't want me to receive it, they should not be pointing it at me.
Either you are deliberately being an ass, or you have missed the blazingly obvious. He wasn't referring to modern Scotland/England. He was referring to the past 5 or 6 centuries, in which English monarchs have sent invading armies north repeatedly to crush the Scots. I don't know how history played out on your planet, but on our's, the English treated the Scots (and the Welsh, and the Irish) quite poorly in the past.
Uhhh, are you totally dumb? Edward I's last invasion was in 1303-05. Robert the Bruce rebelled against him though and was crowned Robert I of Scotland. By 1314, the English (now led by Edward II) had been driven out of Scotland. And in 1328, the Treaty of Edinburgh/Northampton recognised the independence of Scottish kingship.
Over the next four hundred years there were a few wars (some started by the English, some by the Scots) but, in an attempt to preserve peace between the two countries, the Scottish and English Parliaments passed the Act of Union in 1707, which recognised that the two kingdoms were ruled by one monarch once and for all. (They had been ruled as seperate kingdoms by one monarch since the time of James I of England - VI of Scotland - in 1603.)
However, some Jacobites refused to recognise that the Stuart monarchy had come to its end with the death of Queen Anne in 1714, and they didn't acknowledge George I's claim to the throne. Their dissention culminated in a rebellion led by Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie) and claimant to the British throne, who led the Scottish Highland army to a futile defeat in 1746. This time round, the Jacobites were the aggressors and advanced down through England as far as Derby before they were forced to retreat and were eventually defeated at Culloden Moor.
So, to recap, there's been little reason for the English and the Scottish to be at war since 1603, when a Scottish monarch took the vacant English throne. England certainly hasn't been invading Scotland at will for a very long time. Not exactly the same scenario you paint: "...the past 5 or 6 centuries, in which English monarchs have sent invading armies north repeatedly to crush the Scots". Ahem.
And, just like the rest of the rubbish spouted about Anglo-Scottish relations in the original parent post ("People with a lower median income", etc - totally not true) it's completely ridiculous to suggest that Scottish people were pirating ITV Digital because of Edward I's imperial ambitions or George I's succession to the throne.
Please, like I told the other guy, check your facts before you start to talk. I find it's a great help when trying to distinguish intelligence from stupidity.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
DirectTV suing its customers must be a tactic stolen from Monsanto.
For one story out of thousands, see
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser for growing a Roundup tolerant crop that resulted from Monsanto genetically modified seed crop fertilizing his crop, devaluing it - he can't sell it in Europe.
He has fought back and has recently the Canadian "supreme court" has agreed to hear an appeal of the ruling in Monsanto's favor.
The thousands of American and Canadian farmers have been forced to settle with Monsanto because they can't afford the legal fees to fight Monsanto.
This is what is so great about America - when you can't figure out how to make a product, all you need to do is figure out some way to sue the people who do.
> Where are you getting your in-depth knowledge of the relationship between
> Scotland and England from?
Fourth-level British history at university and a graduate-level military history of Britain class and related thesis. Ever hear of such wonderful events as the Battle of Culloden and the wars and oppression leading up to it? How about the actual *outlawing* of the kilt and related clan accessories until the Victorian era?
You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about. The Scots were conquered and treated horribly, and pointing to the few big cities with high median incomes *does not* negate the fact that too many Scots don't live and work such a lifestyle. To this day, the Scots people in general are still suffering from an economic and cultural history of oppression, much like the American South up through recent history. Yes, you could point to cities in Dixie with high median incomes even in the 1960s, but the South as a whole was still suffering lingering socioeconomic issues from the devastation of the 1860's and the lack of rebuilding capital that followed.
Now, go read up. When you take a graduate class in the subject, then you can question my credentials in discussing Scotland's plight over the last several centuries and its lingering effects.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Uh, I don't have to "go read up", I know my culture and my heritage quite well thank you. And perhaps you could illustrate just how the Battle of Culloden Moor, which took place well over 250 years ago, hangs over Anglo-Scottish relations today.
Really, I have no interest in whatever spin and bias your history professor at your US university had to add on the events that I've already outlined in my last reply to someone else in this thread.
I've lived, worked and vacationed in the very countries that you're talking about for over three decades and I've yet to meet a Scotsman who feels so aggrieved by events that took place anywhere from 257 to 700 years ago that he feels that it effects him today, or one who feels that Scotland is oppressed by England.
As I've already pointed out, the average Scotsman is better off than the average Englishman in many ways. Scottish students studying at Scottish universities pay no university tuition fees - the same isn't true of English students irrespective of where they study. In England, (if either the vendor or the purchaser decides to play silly games) housebuying can become a nightmare - in Scotland, the whole process is far more civilised. Health is another area where the Scottish are better off too.
Thanks to devolution and the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament, Scotland is largely governed in Scotland by Scottish MPs (SMPs) elected by Scottish constituencies,. This parliament sits and governs with complete independence from that in London, which also has Scottish MPs (MPs) sitting. In fact, right now there's the ridculous situation that MPs in London representing Scottish voters can decide what laws govern England alone (while similar laws effecting Scotland are decided by SMPs in Edinburgh).
Scotland isn't some backward nation like you would like to portray it. Perhaps you should get off your ass and check it out yourself if you don't believe me.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
> I've yet to meet a Scotsman who feels so aggrieved by events that
> took place anywhere from 257 to 700 years ago that he feels that
> it effects him today, or one who feels that Scotland is
> oppressed by England.
You'd be hard-pressed to find an average white Southerner in the U.S. as well who feels aggrieved by the events of the late 19th century, but it doesn't negate the measurable socio-economic impact. Are you honestly saying to me that the events surrounding the English ascendancy over the Scots, Welsh, and Irish don't have any lingering socio-economic effects?
My professors at university would disagree greatly, particularly the one from Scotland and two from England. Just because I live in the U.S. doesn't mean I'm insulated or ignorant of the world or haven't traveled to the places I discuss, despite the ignorant views of so many Europeans. The advantages Scotland may have in governmental simplicity compared to England, BTW, have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion of the socioeconomic ramifications of relatively recent (in historical terms) English oppression. Median incomes outside of large city centers, however, do. Lessening influences of local dialects and cultures, however, do. Lessening knowledge of and practise of *local* history, lore, and customs, do.
> Scotland isn't some backward nation like you would like to portray it.
I haven't portrayed it that way at all. I merely mentioned that it's an area which still hasn't reached socioeconomic parity with some of its neighbours due to historical oppression. Your defensiveness in assuming I was saying something I wasn't, is very telling.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
...I haven't portrayed it that way at all. I merely mentioned that it's an area which still hasn't reached socioeconomic parity with some of its neighbours due to historical oppression. Your defensiveness in assuming I was saying something I wasn't, is very telling.
No, but what you did say was that the reason why ITV Digital was pirated so widely in Scotland was (directly or indirectly) because of the lasting effects of wars that took place well before the US was even established. Are you really suggesting that the piracy took place because of some subconsious resentment over conflicts that old rather than just plain self-interest?
In my personal experience (which, as an IT journalist is much probably broader than you'd give me credit for) people take advantage of pirate viewing cards for one reason and one reason only - because it lets them get something for almost nothing. It's a money thing, pure and simple.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
> Are you really suggesting that the piracy took place because
> of some subconsious resentment over conflicts that old rather
> than just plain self-interest?
I think each of us was fundamentally mistaking what the other was saying. My argument wasn't about any resentment over conflicts of the past, but rather about general socioeconomic factors. People who are not as economically and technologically well-off thanks to lingering socioeconomic discrepancies would be less likely to purchase what is essentially a luxury entertainment service than their neighbours would.
In other words, I agree with you that it's a money thing. It's just that people with slightly less disposably income and slightly less urban development (again, there are huge cities in Scotland, but they aren't the whole of it) will be less likely to purchase and more likely to pirate.
I doubt we really disagree very much, we just came to a misunderstanding of each others' positions I believe.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
I don't think that it was the crofters that were buying the pirate viewing cards.
For one thing, most of the highlands would have been outside the signal range of those terrestrial broadcast antennae that carried the ITV Digital signals - it's a bit pointless trying to pirate something when you can't receive a clear transmission, isn't it?
For another, the poster who pointed out this mass piracy in the first place said that " half the population of Scotland - where for some reason, this is especially rife - were using bent cards". Now, I'm not able to pull precise population density data of Scotland out of thin air but I expect that just like the rest of the UK (and especially Wales and Northern Ireland), the population of Scotland is heavily concentrated in major conurbations (ie, cities and towns).
Bottom line is this: the overwhelming majority of people using pirate viewing cards were living in urban areas not remote ones.
(BTW, I think you'll find that the median income for any given profession is higher in Scotland than it is in northern England. Scotland has been extremely successful at attracting inward investment, and has far more happening than the neighbouring areas south of the border. These aren't the kinds of things that you'll have learnt about in your history class but they are the kinds of things that effect the financial well-being of the local populations.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg