Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Brazen Bootlegging of a Multibillion-Dollar Sports Network (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the day-robbery dept.

What do you do when your multibillion dollar sports network has been stolen? For the last several days, executives at Qatar's beIN Sports, which functions as the ESPN of the Middle East, have been pondering the same question. For the last several months, live coverage of beIN Sports feed is being broadcast on nearly a dozen beoutQ channels, a bootlegging operation seemingly based in Saudi Arabia, whose roots lie in the bitter political dispute between Qatar and a coalition of countries led by its largest neighbors, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. From a report: The coalition countries have subjected Qatar to a punishing blockade over the past year. Those countries last year accused Qatar of supporting terrorism and criticized its relationship with Iran, an ally of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. They enacted an embargo, cut off diplomatic ties and set up the blockade of the energy-rich emirate, closing Qatar's access to many of the region's ports and much of its airspace. Qatar has denied the allegations and has claimed it has assisted the United States in its war on terrorism.

Now, one month before the start of the World Cup, the world's most-watched sporting event and beIN's signature property, the audacious piracy operation is positioned to illicitly deliver the tournament's 64 games to much of the Middle East. Qatar, despite abundant resources, has been powerless to stop it. Decoder boxes embossed with the beoutQ logo have for months been available across Saudi Arabia and are now for sale in other Arab-speaking countries. A one-year subscription costs $100. A Bangladeshi worker reached by phone at Sharif Electronics in Jeddah this week said his shop has been selling the boxes for three months. "Many people buy them," he said.

63 comments

  1. What's the problem? by Trogre · · Score: 0

    So their content is being re-broadcast, and the advertising therein gets a wider audience. Sounds like a win-win.

    Hardly sounds like theft.

    If this is negatively affecting their bottom line, somehow, then perhaps they need to re-think their business model.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you read the article it literally says that beoutQ is inserting their own commercial breaks, so no advertisers are getting a wider audience.

      Their business model is not the issue - another company is conspiring with a foreign government to block their signals, drastically cutting their subscriber base. Then, to add insult to injury, they are re-transmitting the exact same content, without paying for it, to the subscribers they are no longer allowed to sell to AND inserting their own advertising.

      The last paragraph of the article says it best “They’ve created a brand without any acquisitions.”

    2. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this is Hilariously simple to stop. buy a box, send a signal out to each subscriber one at a time (or ten, or fifty) identifying the specific subscriber in a concealed manner, once you find out what they're doing to steal the signal broadcast donkey porn instead, but only during the big games.

    3. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      once you find out what they're doing to steal the signal broadcast donkey porn instead, but only during the big games.

      No, they want to stop people from watching.

    4. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to be two problems here.

      Qatar isn't being allowed to sell to other countries in the region, which would normally be part of its audience. This is a political problem, and beIN has good reason to be pissed off because it's being punished for something it wasn't actually a party to.

      The piracy is another issue entirely. In this, people literally outside their market are picking up the signal without any money going to them. Due to the first problem above, these aren't customers. They can't be customers due to politics.

      No money is lost by beIN due to piracy. All the money lost is due to politics. If they could have sold to these foreign markets, they'd have reason to be seriously upset with beoutQ... but as it stands, their issue should be primarily with the blockade that prevents them from offering a legitimate service to the fans.

      As is generally the case, piracy is a service problem, not a financial problem.

    5. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What are the chances its a secret subsidiary of the same company? If they don't complain at all, people would assume it is and shut it down. By gently complaining, it seems like an external entity, so they get to keep those external ad dollars coming in (possibly tax free). It sure makes it easier to insert those ads on the fly.

    6. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      =100%

    7. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      maybe some deepfakes with the crown prince? That would be SO hilarious!

    8. Re:What's the problem? by freudigst · · Score: 1

      "..perhaps they need to re-think their business model."

      Better known as never opposing an imperialist initiative conceived by the United States. Such are the consequences (at the moment) for a failure to abide.

    9. Re:What's the problem? by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This problem is actually super easy to solve.

      Insert random overlays that criticize the Saudis and the Saudi royal family.

      Once that happens, the Saudis will censor the bootleg channel themselves. That's it. Problem solved.

    10. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like a prison-prison to me. The Saudi's are such a pirates, blocking harbors and rebroadcasting without permission. Those licensing agreement breakers, those! The only way forward is to donate the only still kinetically active organized group that wants to remove the Saudi royalty from their position. For TV rights!

    11. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is hilarious is you didn't read the article or at least very well.
      They already put a digital marker on each box, but apparently boutQ has managed to hide those.

      In fact, I am betting they are using more than 2 subscribers, and then checking the differences between them to determine the markers and hide them.

      If it was hilariously simple, they would have already solved the problem.

    12. Re:What's the problem? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Right, all they have to do is create a major diplomatic incident during the world's most-watched sports broadcast. Simple.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    13. Re: What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting aside for a moment that a channel doesnâ(TM)t have to let someone distribute their content, itâ(TM)s incredibly naive to think that all of their revenue comes from advertising. Cable companies PAY to carry those stations, so it clearly would be outright theft. But you probably understand that already.

  2. This is bad news for the Saudis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now Qatar can point to this, and the Jews will see it as a threat.

    Soon Disney and Comcast will mobilize their legions, Fox, Paramount, and Viacom will not be far behind. And to be honest, MLB, the NFL, and the NBA will all feel threatened.

    That means for once, all races will be united. Even the Canadians.

    Good job, Riyadh, now you shall suffer the wrath of the most vicious monsters to walk the Earth since the Aztecs.

    1. Re:This is bad news for the Saudis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cuz bootleg broadcasts of yukon curling championships, maple syrup harvesting, and professional loon calling are gonna be big hits in the deserts of the middle-east.

  3. Huh. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I guess Muhammad never weighted in strongly on signal piracy. I guess it's ok then.

    1. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the following two quotes are very clear on the matter:

      "Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."

      "I'm the most recognized and loved man that ever lived cuz there weren't no satellites when Jesus and Moses were around, so people far away in the villages didn't know about them."

      --Muhammad Ali

    2. Re:Huh. by houghi · · Score: 1

      Well, he was against interest, so there's that.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  4. I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps a nice, polite jihad could help. Seems to solve all their other problems.

  5. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am witing for the Trump tweet justifying what his Saud friends are doing is somehow right. I mean now we are finding Trump Jr. and the Saud princes actually share their women. It cant get closer than that.

  6. Don't get mad, get even. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Pirate Saudi's stuff in retaliation.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  7. Re:Its sports, not tech, who cares. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    But it's a catharsis. It probably prevents war.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  8. Many ways around that. by robbak · · Score: 4, Informative
    One issue is that in this area of the world, pay TV is delivered by satellite. Everyone in a region receives the same encrypted broadcast, and it is decrypted by secret keys inside the decoder box. If you have the money, separating that decryption module and capturing the decrypted video stream is child's play. Even where it is delivered by cable, the same signal is delivered, encrypted, to many customers, so this sort of work could determine which suburb they are capturing in - which isn't much use, as they would only capture from one site for a few minutes at a time.

    And then you have to be using a way to mark it that doesn't degrade service for your customers, isn't detectable by your target (or they'll just strip it), and isn't destroyed by re-encoding.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    1. Re:Many ways around that. by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      One issue is that in this area of the world, pay TV is delivered by satellite. Everyone in a region receives the same encrypted broadcast, and it is decrypted by secret keys inside the decoder box. If you have the money, separating that decryption module and capturing the decrypted video stream is child's play. Even where it is delivered by cable, the same signal is delivered, encrypted, to many customers, so this sort of work could determine which suburb they are capturing in - which isn't much use, as they would only capture from one site for a few minutes at a time.

      And then you have to be using a way to mark it that doesn't degrade service for your customers, isn't detectable by your target (or they'll just strip it), and isn't destroyed by re-encoding.

      The technology does exist, though. DirecTV and Dish Network have the exact same problems, and still have methods around it, some very creative (and exploding them in the final minutes of the Superbowl so all the pirates get to miss the excitement).

      And cable providers have individually addressable boxes nowadays - you have to "activate" them which basically programs them with the necessary decryption keys. And it's enough so that it's generally a pain in the butt.

      It's even a sport between the pirates and the satellite

    2. Re:Many ways around that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all comes down to the design of the system. If you can't reliably shut off the key stream to each subscriber separately, you're fucked. If you can, you bisect the subscriber base: Like the other AC said, buy a pirate box so you can see when you've cut off the pirate head end. Then shut off the signal to half your subscribers for a brief moment. If there is no dropout, continue with the other half, then shut off the signal to half of that, and so on until you find the head end subscriber. The pirates may have multiple subscribed boxes, so you may need more elaborate schemes to find them, but essentially this is always possible.

      They could also go after the distribution channels of the boxes or follow the signal to its source.

    3. Re:Many ways around that. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
      It is easier than that.

      For each stream delivered add markers. Find the marker and you can leak source.

      This was done way back in 1980, in films. My superstar Rajnikant movies were showing up in bootleg VHS tapes. The distributor used a stapler to punch a couple of holes on specific frames on each set of reels. Then on the bootleg VHS tape, he paused that particular segment and advanced frame by frame to find two bright white circles on one frame. Looked up which theater got that set and and found the source of the leak.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Many ways around that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual data stream is the same for all subscribers and it's encrypted with the same key for everybody. This is necessarily so because satellite TV is a broadcast medium. This global key is then sent encrypted with the individual keys of the subcribers' cards. The key changes regularly, so any card that isn't sent the key cannot decrypt the signal, but all cards which can decrypt the signal get exactly the same data stream, so watermarking that is not possible. You could make the legitimate set top boxes watermark their output individually, but since the devices are obviously in hostile hands, this would not be a lasting solution.

    5. Re:Many ways around that. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

      So the only serious solution seems to be individual streams served via the internet.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:Many ways around that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do that if you had read the article completely.

      I'm betting they are using several streams and combining them to remove the markers.

    7. Re:Many ways around that. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      For each stream delivered add markers. Find the marker and you can leak source.

      From TFA:

      The beIN antipiracy team believes it knows how beoutQ is stealing the signal. Essentially, the website is re-airing content delivered to an individual subscriber. Since each subscriber has a unique identification number that is usually visible, known as a fingerprint, beIN engineers thought they would be able to easily identify the offending customer. However, the pirates have figured out how to hide their fingerprints.

      So, yes, each stream has a marker. TFA is not explicit in saying that it is a marker from the source to the subscriber, or something that is output from the subscriber terminal. In any case, the pirates have identified and are removing the marker. Kind of like patching the holes in your old movie film process.

      The solution is not as simple as turning off the offending user's stream, however. While boxes are individually addressable, that relies on a cooperating box. If your decryption system does not pay attention to the authorization signal, then it doesn't matter if you don't get authorized.

      This is the same problem Dish had (and may still have) with their card system. People were hacking the decryption cards so they would decrypt without needing to be authorized.

    8. Re:Many ways around that. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Also, a slight variant of this system (holes in film) used to be used on movies distributed to airlines for in-flight entertainment. At some point in every movie there would be a super with the name of the airline. Maybe more than once. A dedicated pirate could simple cover that, so it would only stop casual piracy.

    9. Re:Many ways around that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a proper pay TV system, the cards aren't "authorized" by telling them they are authorized. The cards need keys to decrypt the data stream. These keys are encrypted to the individual keys of the cards and then broadcast, but obviously a card can not decrypt the key encrypted to some other card's key, so a rogue card cannot just ignore that it hasn't been "authorized". It lacks the key for decrypting the data stream.

      Many pay TV systems exist which cut corners, but the hardware is cheap and powerful enough to do this properly now. Even extracting the individual card keys doesn't work: Then you can only copy that card, but as soon as that subscriber is suspected of wrong-doing, the network can just issue a new card, which is cheap, and render all the extraction work, which is expensive, useless. Live pay TV is a solved problem, if you don't cut corners.

    10. Re:Many ways around that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible to deliver multiple decryption keys and content that is only encrypted by one of the keys. Half the population would display, e.g., and extra frame and the same bisection approach works without negatively effecting legit viewers.

  9. Copied by Meneth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not "stolen", it's copied.

    1. Re:Copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The data may be copied, but the service is stolen.

    2. Re:Copied by originalGMC · · Score: 1

      No data delivery = no service = prime opportunity to deliver data via "other means" = no theft

      They're just doing what they can to watch / share a sport the entire world loves. Seems like a bunch of nice people to me!

    3. Re:Copied by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Actually, it looks like BeoutQ provides their own service to their customers. The pirate users are hitting BeoutQ's servers, not the original servers.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  10. It's all about the investment in encryption by Monkey · · Score: 1

    Not sure what they expect. They're using shit-tier encryption. This doesn't happen on a large scale with Dish and DirecTV anymore because they stepped up their game with encryption.

  11. Hm by Fencepost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there's no legal distribution of their content within Saudi Arabia, perhaps they should start making sure that most of the content of interest to Saudis also includes strong subversive and anti-government propaganda. After all, it's not like they're transmitting it to Saudi Arabia.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
    1. Re:Hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a powerful idea but the rights holders would be down on them like a ton of bricks. They do not want to piss off the Saudi market which is lucrative.

      Proper football or "soccer" is insanely popular in the Middle East with big money to be made in merchandising, one-off games, TV rights etc.
       
      They are just collateral damage in the fight between Saudi and Qatar. The Saudi's want to be the big dog on the block.

  12. grimy arse by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those countries last year accused Qatar of supporting terrorism

    The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. This is how America divides countries and regions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. sell hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to both parties
    2. run covert operations and create situations that will spark rivalry, conflict, accusations, and hopefully war
    3. profit

    Saudi Arabia is not stealing anyone's sports-feeds. They have all the licenses and sports-feeds they need.

    Every time the Middle East has tried to unite, the people spearheading the effort have been removed quickly to prevent it from happening.

    Most recently it was Ghadaffi, under the premise that freedom, democracy and liberation needed to be gifted to the poor people of Libya -- the one country that had the highest quality of life and equality in the whole Middle East and north African region.

    The Middle Eastern countries should effort to unite before the U.S. divides you up beyond reconciliation.

  14. Re:"the world's most-watched sporting event" is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, you're correct that it sucks that they lie and refuse to tell the truth about the name of this gay "sport."

    At least it is played with feet and uses a ball, instead of the handegg that you folks pretend to play.

  15. Simple? by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

    You broadcast a unique ID to all your viewers and see which one comes up on the stream. Then you kill said viewer (this is the middle east, yes?)

    Did I miss something in this obvious 2-step process?

    1. Re:Simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not so easy. When transmitting via sattelite (like they are), everybody gets the same signal. In theory, you could do a local insert on the STB, but that usually involves updating the firmware -- and they are assuming they are using the same type of device as their legit subs.

    2. Re:Simple? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you missed the part about how the satellite broadcast, by definition, is not a per-user signal. It is one signal received by everyone in a certain area.

      So, yeah, you can put a unique ID on your 1 signal, and then you'll be able to find out that someone receiving your 1 signal is the person re-broadcasting it. I'm not sure how that helps you though, you still don't know which of the many people receiving the same signal is the one you're looking for.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Simple? by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      I don't know? Triangulation? I'm not a fucking sattelite engineer, but clearly these people aren't either.

    4. Re:Simple? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Triangulation? What's that supposed to mean? There aren't 3 satellites where they measure the time that the signals take to reach each customer. It's one satellite blasting out the signal to everyone who wants it. If you take an antenna out and broadcast a signal out, and then later you hear that someone had recorded that signal and is playing it back, you don't know who it was who recorded your blast. It could have been anyone. It's the same situation, the satellite does not send a different signal to every customer, it broadcasts a single signal to anyone who wants to receive it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  16. Saudi by dehachel12 · · Score: 4, Funny

    >Those countries last year accused Qatar of supporting terrorism
    That's rich coming from Saudi-Arabia

  17. BeIn's monopolized model is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For those not familiar with the business model that BeIn uses:

    They sign exclusive rights for the entire Middle East from whatever agency is responsible for broadcasting the World Cup. In just one fell swoop they exclude millions of people that can't afford the $400 subscription from watching the games. What they end up basically doing is confining the games to those with the money for satellite and/or the disposable income to go watch it at restaurants.

    These aren't teenagers that are buying these boxes. More than likely it's poor people that make about $100 to $200 a month trying to enjoy some leisurely football that's available for free or at a fraction of the price in other more advanced countries.

    1. Re:BeIn's monopolized model is to blame by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      For those not familiar with the business model that BeIn uses: They sign exclusive rights for the entire Middle East from whatever agency is responsible for broadcasting the World Cup. In just one fell swoop they exclude millions of people that can't afford the $400 subscription from watching the games.

      Almost. It is the World Cup organizing committee that signs exclusive deals that is excluding viewers. If that committee had not granted exclusive rights to a geographic area, other companies could buy the same feed and sell it cheaper, or for more.

      This is common practice. I figure that a commercial enterprise has a right to charge what it wants for its product; I have a right to not pay that price if I don't like it. It's silly to think that I can tell a content producer that they have to make their content available to me at a price I'll pay. What I can tell them is they can keep their product if they want too much or show it someplace I can't see it.

      More than likely it's poor people that make about $100 to $200 a month trying to enjoy some leisurely football that's available for free or at a fraction of the price in other more advanced countries.

      Now you are blaming the country. Once again, it's the sports organizer not the country that writes exclusivity into the contracts. And you're also pretending that access to video services is a basic human right.

      What I am currently chuckling about is your reference to The World Cup as "some leisurely football". It ain't Upper Wolly FC vs. Barnswater playin' in the World Cup, you know.

  18. Post it to Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you do when your multibillion dollar sports network has been stolen?

    Clearly one should have immediately posted it to Slashdot to see what wise advice the community has to offer!

  19. They're both the same company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Work around politics and make more money? Come on, you'd do it if you had thought of it. SkyHD is a bit of a mare to work around, the tech exists. Sky also had a hand in the decryption and mass piracy of a rival service years ago which sent the rival service under

  20. beIN not just Middle East! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the ESPN of the Middle East

    It's also the only official way to watch women's professional tennis in the US, Australia, Belgium, and France.listed here at the WTA's site

    WTA decided to launch their own streaming service and fucked up big time. Note this doesn't include the Slams, because those are ITF events, not WTA events.

  21. Qatar? by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    Oh, right the ones with the "no lower limit" religious exception for marriage....Fuck 'em?