If you engage a lawyer, you'll get your due process (actually, they'll probably just waive the fine since they don't want to deal with the process if they don't have to). The trick is finding a lawyer who costs less than the fine.
In the States, it seems common enough to pay much more for the lawyer than for the fine. The real hidden cost is the increase in your insurance premium being many time the amount of the fine itself. Your insurance company is pretty much guaranteed to make much more than the government for these infractions, and they both lobby for laws enabling this sort of thing as well as underwriting installation of such equipment in local municipalities.
It's pretty much free money for the (local) government, as well as letting them decrease manpower for patrol in those areas. (As far as actually decreasing the workforce versus freeing them to work on "real" crime is a separate debate.)
...In 1900, Montgomery had passed a city ordinance for the purpose of segregating passengers by race. Conductors were given the power to assign seats to accomplish that purpose; however, no passengers would be required to move or give up their seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available. Over time and by custom, however, Montgomery bus drivers had adopted the practice of requiring black riders to move whenever there were no white only seats left.
So, following standard practice, bus driver Blake noted that the front of the bus was filled with white passengers and there were two or three men standing, and thus moved the "colored" section sign behind Parks and demanded that four black people give up their seats in the middle section so that the white passengers could sit...
...Parks was charged with a violation of Chapter 6, Section 11 segregation law of the Montgomery City code, even though she technically had not taken up a white-only seat--she had been in a colored section...
I especially love the going-out-of-business "EVERYTHING MUST GO!" banner -- exactly what stock are they trying to move off the shelves and out of the warehouse? What was the previous price on albums (GOOB price is $7)?
Tim C said:
People seem to forget that just because you can make copies at as close to zero cost as makes no practical difference, that doesn't mean that the first one wasn't insanely expensive to produce.
Oh, but if we could only find some sucker to buy the first one!
I didn't notice anything in TFA that actually spelled out whether it was receiver equipment or just smart card research (I didn't read the judgement). Anyone with better reading comprehension than myself who can answer?
From what I understand, the satellite signals are encoded digital streams which smart card is used for the actual decryption engine, making it the most critical part in the system. I believe the "tuner" in a DirecTV receiver just points which stream it shoots at the smart card to get a valid MPEG2 (now and/or MPEG4) stream.
(Technicalities to above statement) Whether or not it just retrieves keys from the smart card (after a PKI exchange) that are used to decode the session (which I hear gets renewed quite frequently while you're watching) or the smart card actually spews the decrypted stream itself, I'm not sure, but basically if you can take remove the smart card out of the picture, you have a straight shot at their entire service unencrypted.
When taken inside a courtroom, these technicalities become very blurry and I'm sure many judges/juries/laymen can be convinced that someone tampering/researching/ with a smart card of any kind are vile scum intent on defrauding DirecTV. I hope this is what the EFF is fighting against, though I do not believe anyone trying to attack an encryption system (for whatever purpose) is a criminal either. You only cross the line when you purposely defraud those protected by said system to your own benefit (watching their service without paying, selling the information to those who wish to do the same, using information obtained against them, etc).
Otherwise, as the running/. joke goes, ROT-13 will be a legally protected system with which you can claim damages. Sad, sad, sad state for those not running in the consumer herd...
My big problem with this issue is that at my past two jobs I worked for companies that did work with SIM cards. These are basically just a smaller form-factor of a smart card. At the time, there were various companies selling smart card readers specifically for the purpose of defeating DirecTV's copy protection scheme. As it happens, they had better prices on the same equipment I used for my job, so I ordered several for myself and a few cow-orkers.
DirecTV's lawyers started going after these businesses, obtained their customer lists through discovery and started going after their customers, too. You can guess what happened next.
As it happens, I was a DirecTV customer at the time. I never used these card readers to hack my DirecTV smart card, but I did use it legitimately for work. It took quite a bit of song and dance and a discussion between them and my (Sweden-based) management and CTO to convince them that I did have authorization to procure "SIM card readers" and expensed them through my company and wasn't using them for illicit activity, though it almost cost my job. Smart cards are very popular in most of the Scandinavian countries in many industries, and it was a bit amusing to hear DirecTV tell my CTO that he had no business reason to need a card reader for ANYTHING other than to steal from DirecTV.
For some examples, look at the security industry (physical access requiring a smart card - very popular in Finland), secure banking industry (you've seen the American Express Blue with the built-in smart card), cellular industry (all GSM SIMs are really smart cards), and Finland even uses smart cards for their national ID (which I hear makes their voting system work well).
Yes, perhaps I should have looked for a more "authorized" dealer or whatever, but money is money and my original bright idea that made my popular with my manager cast a shade over me that pisses me off to this day.
Maybe the correct question is, "Are you liable if you purchase equipment intended for illegal/illicit/immoral/ purposes for a legitimate reason?"
Tying in to the original point, it's amazing what power these guys have over people that don't have a company "in the business" to back them up. If I were doing the same job as a freelance contractor (which is very possible and more profitable in my former industry), I would have been legally fucked.
There are good reasons why lawyers should not be able to shackle research, industry, and "creative" self-education that fall outside of their business model. Generally speaking, smart cards are very secure devices, and if I recall correctly, DirecTV's woes started by using a vendor that leaked critical information (whether through subterfuge or buying off one or more of their employees) about how to confuse one of their specific types of smart cards into giving up it's secrets. This made the entire smart card industry look bad, and instead of taking it up with their vendor and immediately replacing those cards, they started suing potential customers. (I say potential, since I doubt many of them actually had subscriptions. At the time DirecTV was allowing their equipment vendors to sell receivers directly to people who obtained an unauthorized smart card to receive the service for free. Who really knows if they would be real customers had this avenue of exploitation not been available?) They took years to phase out the old cards for new, secure ones, and have since gone to a lease-only model for equipment so they can track who actually has a receiver and demand the equipment back if they're not suing it.
I'm not sure that DirecTV is evil, per se, but rather incompetent and legally blame everyone other than themselves. *Shudder* I'm glad someone is finally putting them in their place, as they have contributed to the overall chill on research that seems too prevalent today...
Thanks that worked!! My idea to put an enigma gear into my wobbly hard drive to create an encrypted file system didn't pan out so well and I could no longer read the text file I keep all my XP activation keys...
Bush should act immediately. The man should be placed in Gitmo! This new found wireless "freedom" will only make the terrorists hate us more.
But I thought it was doing things that the terrorists want that was bad -- which is it? Or should I just live my life like normal and not worry about what the terrorists think?
That will never happen. By 2057 copyrights will be eternal, like God, and Europe of the 1600's and 1700's, intended. Beware those radical American colonists with their crazy ideas!
What about Europe of the 1980's? I think the RIAA intends to make them eternal as well
A link to a forum that quotes a magazine quoting a guy... something doesn't seem right here.
There's a lot of quotation involved here.
There is indeed a lot of quotation going on.
Indubitably! There's too much quotation going on around here!
Quotes on/. stock going down while stock on/. quotes going up?
(Seems only three levels of blockquote supported...)
Well, if it is GPLed, it is in violation of the license...
I wouldn't think the copyright holder would be bound by his own license if it was a completely original (non-derivative) work. However, this would effectively prevent anyone else from copying and distributing (those two acts tied together) since no one else would be able to meet the terms of said license...
From what I've seen, it's mainly the fact that you are holding a taco on the side of your head that requires some effort to ensure it remains there and obscures your field of vision not only by blocking one side of your head but making it difficult to turn your head and see all areas around your car. I can't count how many times I've seen someone talking on their phone on the left side of their head, making a subtle motion that they are glancing in the lane to their left, then trying to change lanes on top of me since they didn't actually look.
Driving with a taco on the side of your head has been made unlawful in many states, but handsfree systems for the most part are ok. How is this new system going to distinguish between the two?
Instead of posting something stupid like "brace yourself for a flood of comments" (DUH), why not flood us with links to statistical studies proving your inferred point?
30 Mac users, therefore it had to be an RP server;)
Random animosity aside, I do hope they do show decent support for that platform, as games are one of the few reasons I'm still tied into Wintel. Linux+wine almost works but not quite. OSX, with it's familiar unix backside, would definitely have more marketplace potential if gaming ever hits critical mass (again), and give me the excuse I'm looking for.
I don't care how many times Bill & co reinvent how to launch a program, it feels tired and bloated.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty much free money for the (local) government, as well as letting them decrease manpower for patrol in those areas. (As far as actually decreasing the workforce versus freeing them to work on "real" crime is a separate debate.)
Is this true in the UK as well?
Of what crime was she guilty?
I especially love the going-out-of-business "EVERYTHING MUST GO!" banner -- exactly what stock are they trying to move off the shelves and out of the warehouse?
What was the previous price on albums (GOOB price is $7)?
I wish I could be so clever. Blame the lack of caffeine for that and my poor grammar this morning ;)
I didn't notice anything in TFA that actually spelled out whether it was receiver equipment or just smart card research (I didn't read the judgement). Anyone with better reading comprehension than myself who can answer?
/. joke goes, ROT-13 will be a legally protected system with which you can claim damages. Sad, sad, sad state for those not running in the consumer herd...
From what I understand, the satellite signals are encoded digital streams which smart card is used for the actual decryption engine, making it the most critical part in the system. I believe the "tuner" in a DirecTV receiver just points which stream it shoots at the smart card to get a valid MPEG2 (now and/or MPEG4) stream.
(Technicalities to above statement) Whether or not it just retrieves keys from the smart card (after a PKI exchange) that are used to decode the session (which I hear gets renewed quite frequently while you're watching) or the smart card actually spews the decrypted stream itself, I'm not sure, but basically if you can take remove the smart card out of the picture, you have a straight shot at their entire service unencrypted.
When taken inside a courtroom, these technicalities become very blurry and I'm sure many judges/juries/laymen can be convinced that someone tampering/researching/ with a smart card of any kind are vile scum intent on defrauding DirecTV. I hope this is what the EFF is fighting against, though I do not believe anyone trying to attack an encryption system (for whatever purpose) is a criminal either. You only cross the line when you purposely defraud those protected by said system to your own benefit (watching their service without paying, selling the information to those who wish to do the same, using information obtained against them, etc).
Otherwise, as the running
My big problem with this issue is that at my past two jobs I worked for companies that did work with SIM cards. These are basically just a smaller form-factor of a smart card. At the time, there were various companies selling smart card readers specifically for the purpose of defeating DirecTV's copy protection scheme. As it happens, they had better prices on the same equipment I used for my job, so I ordered several for myself and a few cow-orkers.
DirecTV's lawyers started going after these businesses, obtained their customer lists through discovery and started going after their customers, too. You can guess what happened next.
As it happens, I was a DirecTV customer at the time. I never used these card readers to hack my DirecTV smart card, but I did use it legitimately for work. It took quite a bit of song and dance and a discussion between them and my (Sweden-based) management and CTO to convince them that I did have authorization to procure "SIM card readers" and expensed them through my company and wasn't using them for illicit activity, though it almost cost my job. Smart cards are very popular in most of the Scandinavian countries in many industries, and it was a bit amusing to hear DirecTV tell my CTO that he had no business reason to need a card reader for ANYTHING other than to steal from DirecTV.
For some examples, look at the security industry (physical access requiring a smart card - very popular in Finland), secure banking industry (you've seen the American Express Blue with the built-in smart card), cellular industry (all GSM SIMs are really smart cards), and Finland even uses smart cards for their national ID (which I hear makes their voting system work well).
Yes, perhaps I should have looked for a more "authorized" dealer or whatever, but money is money and my original bright idea that made my popular with my manager cast a shade over me that pisses me off to this day.
Maybe the correct question is, "Are you liable if you purchase equipment intended for illegal/illicit/immoral/ purposes for a legitimate reason?"
Tying in to the original point, it's amazing what power these guys have over people that don't have a company "in the business" to back them up. If I were doing the same job as a freelance contractor (which is very possible and more profitable in my former industry), I would have been legally fucked.
There are good reasons why lawyers should not be able to shackle research, industry, and "creative" self-education that fall outside of their business model. Generally speaking, smart cards are very secure devices, and if I recall correctly, DirecTV's woes started by using a vendor that leaked critical information (whether through subterfuge or buying off one or more of their employees) about how to confuse one of their specific types of smart cards into giving up it's secrets. This made the entire smart card industry look bad, and instead of taking it up with their vendor and immediately replacing those cards, they started suing potential customers. (I say potential, since I doubt many of them actually had subscriptions. At the time DirecTV was allowing their equipment vendors to sell receivers directly to people who obtained an unauthorized smart card to receive the service for free. Who really knows if they would be real customers had this avenue of exploitation not been available?) They took years to phase out the old cards for new, secure ones, and have since gone to a lease-only model for equipment so they can track who actually has a receiver and demand the equipment back if they're not suing it.
I'm not sure that DirecTV is evil, per se, but rather incompetent and legally blame everyone other than themselves. *Shudder* I'm glad someone is finally putting them in their place, as they have contributed to the overall chill on research that seems too prevalent today...
[--Streaming witty comment--72%--Please Wait--]
We agree with your statement and find your terms acceptable.
-The MPAA/RIAA Coalition against Net Neutrality
Thanks that worked!! My idea to put an enigma gear into my wobbly hard drive to create an encrypted file system didn't pan out so well and I could no longer read the text file I keep all my XP activation keys...
(Original article posted September 30 last year)
HAXFLAVORCHEETOES
ROFLOCOPTOR
PWNED
ORLY
SRSLY
NOOBDOTCOM
HAX
BUTSECS
And the ever devastating
OMGPONIES
\m/ Rawk on! \m/
(Seems only three levels of blockquote supported...)
It seems that the Beeb is concerned about DRM -- it's easy to validate this argument as a content provider if it is not a free service.
What choices are out there if the main concern is vendor lock-in? What "open" DRM alternatives exist?
How about my handsfree system?
From what I've seen, it's mainly the fact that you are holding a taco on the side of your head that requires some effort to ensure it remains there and obscures your field of vision not only by blocking one side of your head but making it difficult to turn your head and see all areas around your car. I can't count how many times I've seen someone talking on their phone on the left side of their head, making a subtle motion that they are glancing in the lane to their left, then trying to change lanes on top of me since they didn't actually look.
Driving with a taco on the side of your head has been made unlawful in many states, but handsfree systems for the most part are ok. How is this new system going to distinguish between the two?
Instead of posting something stupid like "brace yourself for a flood of comments" (DUH), why not flood us with links to statistical studies proving your inferred point?
John Dvorak, is that really you or just a reasonable facsimile???
30 Mac users, therefore it had to be an RP server ;)
Random animosity aside, I do hope they do show decent support for that platform, as games are one of the few reasons I'm still tied into Wintel. Linux+wine almost works but not quite. OSX, with it's familiar unix backside, would definitely have more marketplace potential if gaming ever hits critical mass (again), and give me the excuse I'm looking for.
I don't care how many times Bill & co reinvent how to launch a program, it feels tired and bloated.
There's actually 30 people on your RP server? WoW!