DirecTV to Pursue Pirates 291
Trinity-Infinity writes "This story from CNNfn details DirecTV's & Hughes Electronics' plans to eliminate the piracy of their signals through a direct-mail campaign. Their source for creating their list of who to mail letters to? Searching bootlegging operations the feds have already busted. It is interesting that as many as 1 million people may be pirating, in comparison to DirecTV's 10 million paying customers." Ya know, I really want to pirate DirecTV, but not to get all the channels... just to get a damn FOX affiliate over my dish so I could use my DirecTivo for The Family Guy and That 70s Show. Is that to much to ask? I already pay for HBO and Sci-Fi channel. Anyway, there's definitely going to be a lot more cracking down on pirated dish stuff: they are getting crazy with the protective measures.
PSST, hey Taco! (Score:1)
You CAN get local network affiliates on DirecTV now. Although I think they should be free, I believe they are $2.99/month. A lot cheaper than a pirated card...
If it is broadcast thru the airwaves then (Score:2)
jerks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:jerks (Score:3, Funny)
Will Canada be targetted? (Score:4, Informative)
There is Direct TV in México. (Score:1)
Re:Will Canada be targetted? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, the sat. feed is intended for Americans only, and if we can pick it up, I wonder if this is some sort of violation of a CRTC law, because does DTV not OWN that feed?
Re:Will Canada be targetted? (Score:2)
DirecTV signal is public domain in Canada [legal-rights.org]
"On Tuesday, May 29, 2001 The Honourable Judge Mr. Pierre Tessier of the Québec Superior Court dismissed the Crowns appeal in the case of Al Gregory who was acquitted by Mr. Justice Sanfacon of the Quebec Provincial Court last year under section 9 (1) C of the RC Act. Mr. Justice Pierre Tessier completely understood the issues in this appeal and stated very clearly that as DirecTV® are not a "lawful Distributor" in Canada and should not be broadcasting here, that Signal was in the "PUBLIC DOMAIN"".
Re:Will Canada be targetted? (Score:2)
Doesn't that section only refer to the broadcaster, not the recipient of the signal?
"nobody" pays (Score:3, Insightful)
some kind of cracked system for it. My problem
with this is that *I* can't make myself pay
for something that I know is widely available for free, so I basically do without TV.
If the situation were that everybody really and
truly paid, instead of the "H-Card/PC" situation
I see everywhere, I might be able to justify
subscribing.
This is one case where widespread "piracy" has caused me to evaluate a service as not being worth paying for! (If all my neighbors get the
service for free and take it for granted, I do
not wish to be a chump and pay for it.)
If I paid for satellite tv, I would definitely become the only person I know, and I know plenty,
who pays.
Re:"nobody" pays (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"nobody" pays (Score:2)
Are you such a socialist that you can't understand why I won't subscribe to directTV or
whatever until they fix their business model?
It is as if you are accusing me of pirating. I am NOT pirating, nor am I supporting the directTV system that seems to encourage it.
The dish folks benefit from their idiom being saturated into the marketplace. How popular would they seem if only paying subscribers had the service? I think their marketability will suffer greatly if they ever truly stop the piracy. Hard crypto with true accountability between the subscriber and the service provider would do the trick, but do the broadcasters have the balls to really black out that many boxes? I think they allow the piracy to continue because it supports the advertising metrics, and the half-measures they take against it do nothing except focus attention on the broadcasters' victim status.
Because I don't like the business model the broadcasters use AT ALL, I don't support it.
You summarize my opinion as "pathetic" but you seem to have missed the point -- I do without TV.
That seems to be unamerican or something.
I repeat my pathetic observation: In my experience, FAR more than one out of ten satellite TV users are getting their service for free. If you went around telling people you're thinking of paying for it, you'd receive a lot of blank stares, as if it's such a foreign concept as to be beyond reason!
Unless THAT changes, I can't even support the system, not as a subscriber nor as an investor.
newbie question: sat systems in USA a'la Astra? (Score:2, Interesting)
Back at home, all I had to do was to buy a sat receiver, an 80cm dish, a small motor and the 'converter' (whatever that was called, which goes into the dish's focus point), and I was able to get hundreds [funet.fi] of channels [cnn.com]:
I don't want to start a flame-war: I just want a similar service here in the USA while I am here. How can I get it?
Or is it so that, in a similar fashion as for cellphones in the USA, I have to pay even for things which are (or should be) paid for already by someone else?
thanks for any detailed help.
PS: what I mean with the cellphone comparison is:
PPS: I don't want to mess with sat dishes larger than 1m for that, nor to spend more than $300 total for the whole rig (as I'd do in EU).
Re:newbie question: sat systems in USA a'la Astra? (Score:2)
Because the phone system is different, and overall better in the US.
Or to put it anouther way, why in eurpoe do I have to pay to call my nextdoor neighbor, I already have paid for the phone.
for land line phones my neighbors are a free call. For a cell phone I pay for airtime. They don't charge for incoming calls, they charge airtime. doesn't matter what direction. Every cell phone I know of gives you either one free incomgin minute, or you call them on wrong numbers and they won't charge you for them. So wrong numbers are not a problem.
I'd do it too (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't be that bad (Score:2)
Re:Can't be that bad (Score:1)
Seriously, many subscribers don't have a real choice. Of the people I know that use DirecTV, they do so because they either can't get cable where they live, or get AOL/TW cable. They could always just not watch TV, I guess, but I think that's a a seditous act.
Re:Can't be that bad (Score:2)
Yes, there is always land-line cable. And it's a steal, due to the intense competition of all 19 of my local cable companies! This is not to mention the 16 companies providing me with satellite-based TV service. I change my provider every other week, based on their the rates and promotions they're offering. Ain't competition grand?
Arrrggghhh! (Score:2)
Direct TV: Avast ye scurvy channel surfer.. Stand an deliver , your money or your life
Victim: Sorry, I was looking for DirecTv customer service..
Direct Tv: And Ye have found it, ya miserable land-lubber! Now .. would you be interested in upgrading your service or will ya be spendin' the night in Davy Jonse' locker?
Victim: Screw this, I'm going back to cable.
Direct Tv: Threaten me will ya! We'll se whos laughing when you get a Black Spot on yer bill this month!
Victim: 'Click' tone.......................
Re:I'd do it too (Score:2)
I think that's bullshit.
If a signal is being broadcast onto my property (without my consent, I should add), I should have every right to recieve it and process it any way I like.
Even if that means doing something a corporation doesn't like.
C-X C-S
(FWIW, I don't do any unsanctioned decoding of DTV, but I think we need to take the corporate influence out of government. The problem now days is not seperation of church and state, but seperation of business and state.)
Re:I'd do it too (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I have no problem with ECMs, better encryption, etc.
I say more power to 'em,
they have the right to drop any sort of signals
they like through their transmitters, and if the broadcasters can defeat the unsanctioned decoding, let them!
I just don't think it should be
C-X C-S
Re:I'd do it too (Score:2)
I'll take it further: it should not be illegal to manipulate data in the privacy of my own home. Period.
Re:I'd do it too (Score:2)
Re:I'd do it too (Score:2)
Thanks for proving that copyright violation, whereby you don't buy the product, is a correct method of fighting a company.
What were your other two points again?
Defeating this is simple (Score:2)
If DirecTV is stupid enough to sue/prosecute ALL 100,000 people, then they deserve to be run into bankruptcy by all those legal feesx100,000.
Moreover, there aren't enough courts and there aren't enough jail cells to hold a sudden influx of 100,000 people.
This will also cause a TREMENDOUS uproar among the American public.
More likely, DirecTV will decide to pick a few random users, and go after them. Squash one pirate and make an example of him/her, and scare everyone else into compliance.
the cycle of piracy..... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh yeah, the Z34Vfds3 shreds your protection HAR HAR HAR!!!
ahh-haa!! quadruple-super-dee-duper protection device 4943jffj$, try to stop this!!!!!
Oh jeez, it took 25 minutes for my pet chimpanzee to figure out a work-arround with his model: sld2383D slide ruler....but my parrot had to help him, so I guess you made progress
hmmmm, let's get them arrested. HAHAHA.
Jeez, you got two of us, out of 3 million....good job.
now repeat from the beginning accept change the letter/numbers of the devices arround and add a few dee-dupers.....Piracy will continue no matter what, accept it and concentrate on making your products better, nothing has worked yet and nothing ever will.
PC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:PC (Score:2, Informative)
What you do with an emulation setup is get an old PC, and emulate the operation of the microcontroller (an 8051) in the PC. That way, if the code gets reprogrammed, you don't have a useless card, just a PC to reboot.
There's some background information on emulation [canadahu.com] at canadahu.com.
There's also a DirecTV emulator for linux called Pitou, as mentioned previously on Slashdot. [slashdot.org] That one's pretty neat, since it's based on an existing 8052 simulator called ucsim, and it allows you to use a descrambling card across TCP/IP. Pitou's home page [sourceforge.net] is on sourceforge.
Choices (Score:2, Interesting)
Ask a simple question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this a good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cable (Score:4, Interesting)
More companies should offer this kind of piracy discount, I think it'd be a great sell
From what I understand... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Cracked H card.
2. Emulator system.
A cracked H card is just that - back in the beginning of DTV, the smart cards used for access had an "H" designation or some such (am I showing my ignorance of the subject yet?) - these cards, when inserted into a legal DTV system, get programmed based on data in the video stream and data from the phone line. Due to various reasons, certain ones of these cards were never programmed, and as hacking them became more widespread, some were held back as blanks (as it was seen that they would soon be valuable). For the hacking scene, these "virgin" H-cards could be programmed to allow for all channels - so, buy or program a virgin card, pop it in, and get all the channels, for nothing.
Hughes et al. knew this, and developed ways to "destroy" these cards (ie, reprogram them - including the last "famous" Super Bowl hack of this past year) remotely. Sometimes the cards could be reprogrammed. But there is something about a "virgin" H card still - and they are tough or impossible to find cheap.
Now, there are emulators - but not a lot of people use them. Basically, an emulator is a piece of software running on a DOS PC (the software is well known - runs in DOS). Two serial ports are required on the PC - one is hooked up to a smart card reading device - and the other goes to a special "smart card" (actually, a custom PCB shaped like a smart card with pads and traces etched to put the pads in the same spots as an H card, and the traces come out to the edge to be hooked to the serial interface circuit, which is hooked to the serial port). Now, in the smart card reader is inserted the H card.
But what does this "emulator" software do? I have heard everything from it acting as some kind of "digital" filter - so that it doesn't all certain writes to occur (to blow away the H card functions), to that it does actual emulation of everything, and that the card handles the encryption, to other things as well...
This is a DMCA related issue - is the encryption being "cracked"? Or is the PC emulator system simply being used as a "go between" - and the smart card does the decryption?
Like I said - I am ignorant of most of this stuff (though no doubt I obviously know enough that with a little work I could set up a cracked system - problem is getting that damn H card) - does anyone know the answers to my questions?
Re:From what I understand... (Score:2, Interesting)
1 is a uniq identifier and bank of "tiers" or switches that the reciever can check against to see if it's ok for it to show you any given channel. DTV regularly sends a "tier update" targeted to your card's uniq ID, telling it to disable any range of channels you're not subscribed to.
2 The card tracks Pay Per View usage and stores that information in memory for periodic uploading via the phone connection.
3 The card provides decryption keys to the reciever so it can actually decode the MPEG video stream. The card and card interface doesn't have the bandwidth or processing power to do it itself. From watching the numbers roll by on my emulator, it appears that the system uses some kind of changing key encryption algorythm based on hardware in the cards themselves.
The first method for card manipulation is simply to rewrite the software and memory on the card. i.e. the card just authorizes everything and don't track PPV usage. This is known as a 3M (all for one and one for all!) Decryption keys are still coming off the card as usual. Because DTV can test and write to the cards directly through the reciever this is prone to ECMs. DTV can and has "blown fuses" in hacked cards and rendered them inoperable. (looped..)
The emulation method involves putting an emulator board in yor reciever's card slot. You connect this card to a PC via a serial port, then connect the PC to the card itself in a special card reader/writer (programmer) via the other serial port. The PC runs software that emulates a smart card and answers all authorization requests from the reciever. Because the encryption scheme is based on that card's hardware the emulation software passes through any encryption information to the card itself to get the correct key responses. Because DTV cannot write to the cards directly, this keeps the cards safe from being damaged by an ECM.
DTV has been ECMing for as long as there have been hacked cards out there, but now that so many people have begun using emulators, those ECMs are not effective countermeasures against many people. The newest generation of cards has again, been broken, and many still just hack the cards directly.
PS. Yes I DO use the tools to get all the channels, but I also subscribe to thier service. I pay them every month. I wonder if I'll get a letter...
Re:From what I understand... (Score:2)
I read something interesting the other day, someone was monkeying with altering the voltage supplies to the card slot. By lowering the voltage he was able to prevent the sat box from writing to the card, effectively ECM-proofing it. Neat. Why didn't I think of that? But surely the card must need to take some updates on occasion...
(you need to safe the rewriteable memory in the sat box too, that can be fried by ECM as well.)
Re:From what I understand... (Score:2, Informative)
The emulator emulates the card itself and only sends on the actual key requests. Any writes are done in the emulated card in the PC.
It's interesting, but the people that really get into this aren't into TV as much as the challenge. It's kind of like one of the last REAL brain challenges left.
If DTV was smart, they'd just start hiring the best crackers (at any price, really) and have them start searching for methods to stop pirating.
"Pay-Per-View" Article Now Out on DirecTV (Score:3, Informative)
Of course I wonder if the article will be pirated too. :-0
Satellite escrow? (Score:2)
It would be much cooler if... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Where do they get their numbers? (Score:2, Insightful)
The old sayings are true... (Score:2)
But how... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But how... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no reason to believe this is any different from the BSA mailings featured a while ago: They're fishing. No crime in sending a nasty letter, no legal fees or protracted court battle. I suspect the direct mail piece will essentially say: we know you're up to something, ya no-good dirty pirate, but if you go ahead and subscribe to our service right away we won't bother to investigate you...
If, as the article suggests, they've had patchy success prosecuting the big middlemen operations, how the hell likely are they to succeed in running down the a million diffuse and unfederated end-users? Far as I know class action suits only go one way, and this ain't it, meaning they'd have to prosecute each user individually, and what are they likely to get? A back bill for a few years' service at best? Tell me it could come even close to covering the staggering legal fees.
They're just beating the bushes, hoping to scare some people into subscribing. Note that in the final analysis, they don't gain anything if a pirate simply gives up on stealing the signal. They either need to get retroactive compensation or get them to sign up.
Take a look at the stock graph in the article: that's your whole story. Just trying to prop up sagging revenue. The real question is... just how did they get those lists of names? If they were part of a separate case, under what jurisdiction were those names released to DirecTeeVee?
Re:But how... (Score:2)
Their goal would probably be to get a few "casual pirates" thrown in the slammer for a few years, as a message to the rest.
Re:But how... (Score:2)
Back near the end of May, two of the larger companies that manufacture & sell Smart Card programmers/Card Repair Systems & various paraphenelia (WhiteViper & Vector) were raided & had their customer lists seized. The initial response from the DTV hacking community was that unless you were a big purchaser/middleman, you had nothing to fear. Now it looks like they may use this info in much more targeted manner. If I was a customer of either of these companies & ended up circumventing DTV's protection, I'd be awfully worried about someone knocking at my door.
-ct
Re:But how... (Score:2)
If the knock ever comes, the DTV gear is the least of your worries. When the cops show up for hacking-type-crimes, they typically sieze every piece of electronic equipment in the place: printer cables, CDs, telephones, the works. They may have been clued in to you hacking DTV, but they'll get you for all those warez CDs you have too... and you can say goodbye to all your hardware and legitimate data.
i know it's been said before, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
the DSS satellites beam the digital signal to practically every square foot of land in the united states of america. last time i checked, it has never been illegal to intercept a signal that is being delivered to your property.
so what exactly is being stolen here?? let's see, they broadcast a signal at me that i did not ask for. i intercept the signal and do what i will with it. if you pay some company, they will furnish you with equipment which makes it easier to use the signal (that is being beamed at you, with or without your consent).
does this "crackdown" seem ludicrious to anyone else? how do you steal what you are being beamed for free?
-inq
Re:i know it's been said before, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Then you've been out of the loop for 15 years! Thanks to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, it is very much illegal for you to receive a signal 'not intended for your receipt'. This law was ramrodded by the cellular phone industry so that radio enthusiasts with scanners wouldn't be able to listen to your wife ask you to buy bread and milk on the way home.
Re:i know it's been said before, but... (Score:2)
Anyone else remember this?
Also, if I recall correctly, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 says you're not allowed to receive a signal not intended for your receipt if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since DirecTV is blanket-beaming this to essentially the entire hemisphere, there's no expectation of privacy.
Re:i know it's been said before, but... (Score:2)
Cracking DirecTV is illegal. (Score:2)
I get FOX via DirecTV, Taco. Get the local channels pack that includes your local affiliate.
As much as Slashdot advocates free speech and free reception of products (among other things), the unauthorized reception and decryption of a DirecTV signal is illegal...
Re:Cracking DirecTV is illegal. (Score:1)
I don't see why they wouldn't, as I have a couple of the E/W packages with my DTV. (I also subscribe to local channels.)
I believe they consider the E/W packages outdated, though...
...and places that talk about it? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see DirecTV 'going through the motions' trying to scare subscribers. I can also see them actually prosecuting a handful of little people just to put up a good front. But I really don't see them nailing the end user. Just scaring the bejezus out of most of them into, 'Gee. Should I subscribe to this site that has the latest emulator code? DirecTV might get my subscription information and go after me!'
They have legal recourse? (Score:2, Informative)
Though I suppose the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions do apply to doctored smart cards. Sigh.
Re:They have legal recourse? (Score:2)
Re:They have legal recourse? (Score:2)
Actually, I don't think the DMCA can even apply to this. Nobody is copying the signal, it's being broadcast onto my property whether I like it or not. What they've got going here is a content scrambling system. This, at least, is the logical way to look at it. Given Adobe's recent despicable (and successful) behavior, doing anything with their product that the company didn't certify apparently qualifies as "copy protection circumvention".
I for one don't understand how they can even think they have a legal backing here. It'd be like charging me with illegal surveillance for listening to my two neighbors yell at each other across my backyard.
Re:They have legal recourse? (Score:2)
Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is paying DirecTV for usage of their system too much to ask? Nobody really needs all those channels. People generally only get DirecTV for a couple of channels they wouldn't otherwise be able to get in their area. If DirecTV can offer these programs you want to watch in a better way than you can see them now, why not just pay for the service?
IMO Its really damaging to the Geek community to have people who want to pirate DirecTV yelling in chorus with the people who think the DMCA is evil and corporations are trying to strip us of fair use, etc. Just paints us as an unruly mob that wants everything for free.
And, before anyone posts the 'well they broadcast their signal onto my property' defense, I don't buy into that and never will. The fact that these same people would be outraged if they were videotaped and/or voice recorded if they walked by my property (despite the fact that they are reflecting light and broadcasting sound waves onto my property) just makes it more ridiculous.
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Ya know, I really want to pirate DirecTV, but not to get all the channels... just to get a damn FOX affiliate over my dish so I could use my DirecTivo for The Family Guy and That 70s Show. Is that to much to ask?
Then geomcbay said:
Is paying DirecTV for usage of their system too much to ask?
I don't know, is growing a sense of humor too much to ask?
He's joking, people! Is it really that hard to tell?
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
He can't get Fox, no matter how much he pays (Score:2)
Taco can't legally get Fox, no matter how much he pays. Still the signal for many Fox stations are transmitted to his receiver, but it just won't show them. Pretty frustrating situation.
I'm in the same position regarding WB and UPN. If I could I would pirate the signal and continue to pay my $40/month...
Just the channels I want (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just the channels I want (Score:1)
Re:Just the channels I want (Score:3, Insightful)
Why they can't (Score:5, Informative)
They don't control the channels they offer as much as who they buy the channels from. Say they setup a deal with Disney, Disney now says you must require everyone of get ESPN and Disney Channel or no Disney at all. The same with Viacom channels (or whoever owns them now.)
Dishnetwork had a deal called dish pix, $10 10 channels. BUT you couldn't get MTV, Vh1, and a lot of others since their required bundling didn't allow them to be a low tier package. But you could get other "lesser" niche based channels. But those started disappearing as they were being bought out by bigger companies and being tied to other channels.
Discovery was the best at not having requirements, but they may have changed now (with about 20 channels in their lineup)
It all comes down to the provider; DirecTV, DISH Network, and Time Warner are locked down to the channels they offer with others.
They are even restricted by the providers competitors. So if the mid package has A&E, A&E's competitor must be in that package as well.
Now if you go and get yourself a BUD (big ugly dish) you may be able to find a provider who sells more channels ala carte, but they usually have a fee for changing your schedule. They make their money off of fee's and have more options that way.
PPV is actually becoming the preferred solutions for long events. You can sign up to watch a week long cricket match already. I'd think in another couple years you'll probably pick and choose events. But the price will probably be higher (like $20 for the entire Tour.)
Re:Why they can't (Score:2)
Who really cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can understand the "just the channels I want" argument, but it has been addressed elsewhere. If the time comes when it is available, you will probably have to pay a premium for them because you are breaking up a package offered by the studios to the broadcasting companies. (see other posts above for more).
Overall, though, comperable packages are still cheaper than cable (about $10/month cheaper here). Most times, you can get a deal for a free dish and receiver in exchange for a year contract. I have had DirecTV for 2 years now and I must say that I am extremely satisfied with their service and pricing. Time Warner Cable (as most cable companies), treats their customers as a commodity. They think that they are the only game in town. They didnt ask me why I was discontinuing my service, but it sure didnt stop them from calling me once a month for the next year; and they still send me snailmail.
In order for DirecTV/UBS/etc to be able to break the cable monopoly, they need to be supported. Personally, I dont think very highly of people pirating DirecTV because it really does harm them in more ways than just their revenue stream. Once their user base reaches a number that the camble companies are unable to ignore, you will start to see competition in the market. Until then, DirecTV is still cheaper, more reliable, and has more package options.
Re:Just the channels I want (Score:2, Informative)
event but to get that I needed to buy 50+ extra channels. Not worth it in my opinion.
You just want 20 channels not 500?
Ok, that will be $50.00 per month.
DirectTV's costs are not deliniated on a "per channel" basis. They have very high fixed costs ie. satellites. The marginal costs of adding the other 480 channels you your "favorite 20" is negligble. this idea that the cost of 20 channels should be "20/500 x monthly cost" shows an extreme naivete in the way business works.
Same false logic that if record companies sold music by the song than that hit single you like would only cost 1/10 x $15.00 == $1.50. Weell, no average "hit group" only produces 1 hit single per year. I doubt your $1.50 mp3 download would support music creation effort behind that years worth of work.
Re:Just the channels I want (Score:1)
I'm sure the Direct TV people are just continuing the tradition.
Re:Just the channels I want (Score:2)
All prolapsed rectums - ALL THE TIME!
C-X C-S
Re:Just the channels I want (Score:3, Funny)
> All prolapsed rectums - ALL THE TIME!
Who are you, and how did you get your hads on the FOX new season lineup? I'll have you know, trading in SirCam-leaked information can still get you sued ;-)
Re:Just the channels I want (Score:2)
MTV $10/month
ESPN $12/month
TNT $5/month
and on and on...
One could rack up a pretty hefty monthly subscription bill.
No satellite tv in the /. world? (Score:2)
But as far as I can see, if that were to be the law, I can't see how a satellite TV system could possibly be viable. Those satellites cost billions to put up and run, and with no revenue stream that would simply not happen.
Or do I miss something?
Re:No satellite tv in the /. world? (Score:2)
If hacking was legal, there wouldn't be "no revenue stream." Today, hacking DTV is illegal, but it easy to do for technical people. Still, 90% of their subscribers DON'T hack.
Even if hacking was legal, the sat company would be free to make it a pain in the ass, and most people would just pay anyway.
names and addresses (Score:3, Funny)
O.K. we have search and arrest warrents for a Mr. S. Clause, I.P. Freely, Phil McKraken, and George Washington. We're still waiting on the ones for Clark Kent and M. Monroe. Let's roll.
Ha ha, what chumps. Why don't they just go door to door and ask people if they're stealing Direct TV's signal?
Agent: "Sorry to bother you sir but I'm Agent Thompson from the FBI, are you stealing a Direct T.V. signal?"
Man at Door: "No."
Agent: "Fair enough, thanks for your time."
Only ID10Ts will get busted ... (Score:2, Troll)
Sorry, but he deserves to get busted.
Pirates should be treated this way (Score:3, Funny)
This man starts to become a good customer, so finally, the bartender asks him, "I've really aprecaited your business this past week, but what's with the wheel hanging out of your fly?"
So the man says, "Aye there matey, It's driving me nuts!"
Two Wrongs...? (Score:2, Funny)
What happens with pirates who have opted out of junk mail? Get off scott-free?
Re:Dudes, get over the "seriousness" of piracy. (Score:1)
Say at some point in the near future, no one at ALL cares about piracy. The "come on, its nothing" attitude becomes ubiquitous.
It simply needs to stop. Because.
What's next?
*getting off the immediate point, just addressing this fellows point*
People have and will always push the limits of what is *ok* in a society. "If I can pirate a game, what's the difference if I just take it from the store. I mean, the end result is the same, I just made it a little easier for myself." Can you picture the progression of this? After several "generations" of this attitude, couldn't one reason stealing a computer too? Come on, they sell MILLIONS of these things. I just want 1, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? I would have to say that this seems to fit into ALL crime/social standards in society too. Think back 100 years. Could one be openly gay? Of course not, but it is now accepted (NO I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS A BAD THING). Couldn't one stand to reason, if I can be with a man, or a woman, why can't I be with 2 men or women. No, that's polygamy society says. So? Think back to arguments gays have made over the years. Wouldn't they also apply to that situation. Can't one do what they want to make themselves happy as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? What it someone wants to be involved with a child. Most modern people believe that to be VILE (rightfully so), but......who is to say you can't do what makes you happy if the other consents? I just wanted to stress the point that permissiveness can turn into something bad.
Re:Dudes, get over the "seriousness" of piracy. (Score:2)
Because rape and murder enhance the revenue streams from entertainment companies. Who would pay to see half our movies, three quarters of our news, and damn near all of our "reality-TV shows" be without the possibility of witnessing or hearing lurid descriptions of real or simulated rape and murder?
(Yeah, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just feeling like a supremely cynical motherfucker today ;-)
"Sex and vi'lence and rock and roll... this is - serious business"
- John Cougar Mellencamp, Serious Business, 1983.
"We got the bubble-headed bleach-blonde / comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash / with a gleam in hear eye
It's interesting when people die -
Give us dirty laundry..."
- Don Henley, Dirty Laundry, 1982
Re:My question is... (Score:2, Interesting)
There are many issues. The first and easiest one for me is that I don't believe in copyright law. I don't believe in crimes without direct victims, and in my opinion copying something does not involve a direct victim. Perhaps copying and distributing to kill a competitor could be illegal under anti-monopolistic laws, but other than that I just don't see it.
Second. DirectTV is using public airwaves. They are sending signals into my home, onto my property. I should have the right to do anything I want with those signals. Actually I thought the supreme court had ruled that to be the case, but I guess I was mistaken.
Third. I don't believe in laws which are blatently ignored by most of the country. That leads to a situation where the government has the power to arrest anyone, for any reason, because everyone is breaking some law. If you're going to make a law, it has to be enforced. For this reason, I'm all for the 1 million people "pirating" DirecTV being arrested. Hopefully a few will be members of congress, a few will be great lawyers, a few will be rich, and a few will be mobsters. Hopefully we'll get a relative of each member of the Supreme Court. We'll see how quickly the laws get changed and/or overruled then.
Re:My question is... (Score:2)
Without the notion of copyright, you have no claim to the words you speak or the words you write.
The victim of a wild-west style world that you seem to want is the public at large. Without copyright, nobody would write books or produce films at all.
Re:My question is... (Score:2)
Hmm, this is a troll, right? I ask for no claim to the words I speak or write. I think this is evidenced by the fact that my name isn't even attached to them.
Your "nobody would write books or produce films" argument was already debunked by pointing out the fact that books are much older than copyright. Films would be easily sold in a scenario without copyright. Simply make a contract with the theatres to not copy the film. Books would be a bit more difficult, but they are also much harder to copy. You could claim that people would just scan them in and publish them on the internet, but if that's true, why aren't people doing it now?
The fact is that for all realistic purposes, copyright never did exist for noncommercial entities anyway. The internet is starting to make noncommercial, global distribution easy and efficient. Now we're starting to see laws like the DMCA come into play. But even that will eventually be noneffective, and we'll have to resort to even more intrusive measures. Copyright is dying. It's time we start coming up with more effective ways to "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
Re:My question is... (Score:2)
>I write code
Careful where you say that, dude. There are some countries where they put people in jail for doing that sorta shit...
Hmm... we've already got the lyrics to that DeCSS song deemed a circumvention device, on the grounds that a posessor of a brain might understand it and subsequently write code based on it.
I wonder how far the MPAA is from going all the way - deeming "a brain" as a circumvention device, and criminalize posession thereof.
Besides, there's probably no greater threat to the mainstream media industry than people who prefer learning, coding, or reading books than watching movies and TV.
Only brainholders crack software! Brains are circumvention devices! Write your Congressman and demand that he get on-side and endorse the "Anencephalitics' Declaration of Universal Rights" We must Criminalize Encephaly Now!, if for no other reason than to ensure a bright future for all our beloved actors, actresses, directors, newsmakers, congressmen, senators, direct marketers, and of course, for the children!
Re:My question is... (Score:1)
I wonder how far the MPAA is from going all the way - deeming "a brain" as a circumvention device, and criminalize posession thereof.
Well, the DMCA does not say anything about mere "possession", and only covers devices "primarily" for circumvention, anyway. Read the DMCA some time. It's really hard to be for copyright but against the DMCA.
I know you're joking, but I really think that attacking the DMCA is going to get us nowhere. Even if it is deemed unconstitutional, there is no doubt that it'll just be changed slightly to close the loopholes and reinstated. The DMCA merely tries to enforce a law which most of the country already breaks, by closing some loopholes that some unscrupulous individuals have used to get around it.
Re:My question is... (Score:2)
I will bite. Why should TV be free for all? If the producers want to sell to a network who only want paying viewers, then shouldn't we respect their wishes? Why should anyone respect the GPL, say, if at the same time the open-everything crowd do not respect other people's choice of license?
Just because it is possible to pirate DirectTV does not give anyone a right to do so. Empowerment is not Entitlement. No arguments as to the price, quality or fairness of the incumbent system are valid whatsoever, if we want people to respect our own practices as much as we desire.
and lo, the asbestos pantaloons fluttered mightily in the seabreeze
DISH Network 500 is better!!! :) (Score:1)
Re:Justifiying Piracy?? (Score:2)
Re:Justifiying Piracy?? (Score:2)
If enough people in a community start relying on satellite and cable and if they get direct feeds of NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX from them, how long until local broadcasters can't make enough to survive? That means no local news, no local weather, no operating "in the public interest".
Re:Justifiying Piracy?? (Score:2)
I assume the "lousy" part of their business model is that they have something you want and you aren't allowed to get it for free. Tough shit. They have to pay for the satellite, so they charge the people who use it. You want to watch their content, so you pay them for its percieved value. What's wrong with that?
Re:Justifiying Piracy?? (Score:2)
The point is not so much that if it's in plain sight it's fair game, even though it is the case that DirecTV is sending their signals onto my private property without my permission and shouldn't have any say in what I do with those signals after that. The point is that there is no marginal increase in the production cost of the system for the system operators due to one more person decoding the signal correctly, rather than just letting the signal pass directly through their body. Therefore, I don't agree with the argument that "piracy" costs them anything at all, since the major costs of the system (the satellite constellation) were incurred before any legitimate or illegitimate signal reception even occurred.
There's a difference between stealing my mail, which would deprive me of it, and decoding this particular radio signal, which doesn't deprive anyone of anything. If I had a conversation with my wife on the front steps and didn't sufficiently obfuscate the language I was using, could I really complain that you heard what I was saying from the street? Even if it somehow cost me money to say it?
I don't have a DirecTV, hacked or not, so the question is really more academic for me. I just don't like to see "pirates" blamed for DirecTV's security failings. You can make the argument that it would be morally and ethically correct to help pay for the satellites that send you the signal, and I would probably agree with that. I just don't think that I have a requirement to not decode this freely-published transmission just because DirecTV said so.
You could make the argument that it will be harder for DirecTV to pay for content for their network if they've made some sort of deals that mention specific numbers of subscribers or something like that. But that is a failure of their business plan and their lawyers rather than an effect of extra people decoding the signal. A business plan built upon the assumption that you could literally throw content to the winds and somehow prohibit unauthorized users from understanding it had better be backed up by some pretty invulnerable hardware, software, and signals security. If it gets hacked, DirecTV only has themselves to blame (well, and Hughes :).
Re:Justifiying Piracy?? (Score:2)
If you ignore the amount of technology needed, it is possible to remotely obtain any information from any place. Would you object to my use of a laser to eavesdrop on your house? Your vibrating windows are visible from my property.
Re:Justifiying Piracy?? (Score:2)
More like, "if you dump it in my yard, it's mine."
Re:Family Guy (Score:2)
I really enjoyed the porn director story of the first 2 episodes, but #3 just didn't do it for me.
I hope the later episodes of the season improve.
Re:Family Guy (Score:2, Interesting)
The show is great. The problem is that Fox treats it like some kind of bastard step-child. The best way to kill a show is to move it around the schedule and make it disappear for months at a time. Rabid fans will follow it, but the bulk of the viewers, ones who settle into a routine viewing schedule, will give up on it, or assume it has been cancelled.
Re:Cable company GAVE me free TV with internet svc (Score:2)
Didn't think so.
The above should in no way be mistaken for any lack of animosity towards "give them a license to print money and they whine about the cost of the printing press while they try to stick you with the bill for it" cable companies on my part.
Re:Cable company GAVE me free TV with internet svc (Score:2)
Re:just go analog (Score:2)
Re:Everything in is not free (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, DirecTV has every right to make money. What they seem to forget is that they have every right to lose it, too. If they want to make sure that only paying customers can decode their signals, sending out nastygrams and junk mail isn't going to do it. Making it illegal to own a cell phone scanner isn't going to stop it, nor will outlawing radar detectors stop people from exceeding the speed limit.
Pure legislation is very often the least effective means to acheiving a goal. Which is more effective: leaving your house unlocked and trusting to the illegality of theft or installing deadbolts on your doors? Printing money on typing paper and hoping that nobody counterfeits it (after all, that would be -gasp- illegal!) or using cotton paper and any number of tricks to make forgery as difficult as possible?
Obviously, there are many cases where both laws and preventative measures are necessary (murder comes to mind), but why should that include ensuring a corporation a steady source of income?
I would infinitely rather that my cell phone service put money into keeping the signal encrypted and private than have them spend it on lobbying and have to depend on some flimsy law that supposedly has my best interests at heart. Law can and will be twisted to serve any purpose and is written by people who haven't got a clue, while a technical fix to a technical problem is more effective, usually costs less (when you consider money spent on enforcement of the new law), and adds to the knowledge in that field. How much money have the RIAA/MPAA spent on their wars, and just how effective have they been? The RIAA's attempt at CD copy-protection may be nasty, but it's a heck of a lot more effective than what they've been up to till now.
Re:The way to get your FOX affiliate (Score:2)
There is a petition [petitiononline.com] up to oppose this, as if it will help. (I still have it linked to all over my web sites anyway.)