Double Yay! DirecTV smacked over dubious anti-piracy efforts

from JoeUser Forums

Let me start by making it clear up front that I am a DirecTV subscriber and am pretty happy with my service from same.  I like the company, like the service I get, and though I wish that I could get more for less, for the most part I'm happy with how much the service costs me.

Let me continue by saying that I have no sympathy for people that are pirating DirecTV and are caught at it.  If you are stealing signals from DirecTV then you deserve to face the consequences and pay the fees for the service you stole, or could steal, and pay some very hefty fines on top of that.  You do the crime, you do the time.

Where I beg to differ with DirecTV, much the same as I would beg to differ with the heavy handed tactics of the RIAA and MPAA when it comes to supposed piracy of music and movies, is when a crime has actually be commited.

Again, don't get me wrong, if someone is actively involved in sharing music or movies, and/or you see someone downloading movies or music from another site (not iTunes, or Wal-Mart or Urge music sites, but from p2p {peer-to-peer} networks, or other clandestine sites) then as far as I am concerned you got 'em dead to rights, throw the book at 'em for their theft and move on.

In the case of the RIAA and MPAA, I beg to differ with them that the mere fact that someone may be running a p2p application on their system means that individual is going to be, or has commited music or movie piracy.  What the RIAA and MPAA would have you believe is that they are operating in the world of the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report (WARNING SMALL SPOILERS AHEAD HERE, but not enough to really matter....) where there's a room of pre-cogs that have used their abilities to determine that you'll eventually be stealing music or movies by downloading them using the p2p software you installed on your system.

What the RIAA and MPAA have done, up to this point, is just as bad, if not worse, than a lot of what DirecTV is alleged to have been doing as discussed in the article I'll be linking to in a bit.  The sad part is that the RIAA and MPAA have had co-conspirators, or at least have had people in the legal world that have been complicit with the ideas of the RIAA and MPAA who have gone along with the idea that just possessing a tool that has multiple uses is enough to find someone guilty of a crime that there is absolutely no other proof has been commited or will be commited.

I continue to hope that eventually the cases that the RIAA and MPAA have pressed forward make it up through the legal system and that finally someone with a brain that is actually engaged and working reviews the cases and says WTF?!  and WHHHATTTTT?  What?  What?!!?!  I would like to think that eventually someone will wake up and figure it out and realize that the judges at lower levels that have let these practices go un-checked are just as bad, if not worse, than any of the Patriot act stuff that has so many people in an up-roar over Bush administration anti-terrorism efforts (as well as other practices by the Bush era judicial branch).

Anyway, in the DirecTV case discussed here: DirecTV faces setback in dubious antipiracy campaign. Good. (from C-Net's news.com.com site), we see that someone does seem to have finally woken up a little about some of these issues.

I'll clip a few choice words and include them in the comment area. Please take the time to read the linked article though. It's worth a complete read-thru.

business
8,699 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

A few choice clips from that article....  Emphasis in first paragraph MINE.

DirecTV lost an important case on Tuesday. Programmers, security researchers, and anyone who believes in a limited government won.

In a 2-1 split decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out a default judgment against a pair of alleged DirecTV television pirates, saying an "unauthorized decryption device" law the company invoked against them does not apply. That law promises statutory damages of $100,000 per violation.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Here's another clipping that follows the first.  It explains things a little more as to what this case was all about:

The two defendants, Hoa Huynh and Cody Oliver, may eventually be held liable for copyright infringement or lesser violations, of course. But now DirecTV will have to fight harder for it, and the legal risk to legitimate researchers has been reduced.

The reason this could be an important decision is because it strikes at the heart of DirecTV's dubious strategy of treating purchasers of smart-card programmers as if they were necessarily criminals themselves.

In a dragnet of cases filed over many years, DirecTV has been suing people who dared to buy smart-card programmers. Those can, it's true, be used to repair pirate access cards disabled by DirecTV countermeasures (this type of card is sometimes called an "unlooper").

They also have perfectly benign uses. ISO 7818 smart cards are simply cards with both memory and a set of simple circuits. Many European countries use these or similar systems for payment cards. New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., use "contactless" smart cards to store subway fares. Electronic voting, medical records and cryptographic key storage are other common uses.

Again, there is more at the original article, well worth reading.

Let me again reiterate though that the accused individuals in this case (the people that DirecTV was accusing of piracy) get no real sympathy from me if they were guilty.  If they were, they are part of the reason I pay more for service as they aren't feeding the beast and helping to spread costs (and profits) over that many more people.

That is a big IF though, as I presume these people to be innocent until provent guilty.  If they had smart card programmers in their possession is not enough.  If they had smart card programmers and software that would use those programmers to program cards to steal DirecTV is across the boundary though, and if there were both of those items *and* cards that had been programmed for DirecTV services (non-original DirecTV cards, but instead cloned cards, cards programmed by these individuals) in the possession of the individuals, or if there were cards that hard been programmed or provided by the individuals in the hands of others, then you've got not just intent to pirate service, but distribution of materials, possession of materials used for theft of service, etc.

Saying that possession of a smart card programmer is enough though just doesn't cut it.  Possession of a smart card programmer, or blank cards for that matter (with or without the programmer) is not enough and is not -- at least for me, and I would hope not for any sane individual -- enough to prove possession of materials intended for theft of service.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great job DirecTV!

I'm suprised the RIAA hasn't sued everyone with a computer for having tools related to theft.

A default judgement is entered when one of the parties fails to appear, afaik. But I can't see DirecTV not being involved in lawsuits or having charged pressed against them for harrassment and extortion.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm suprised the RIAA hasn't sued everyone with a computer for having tools related to theft.

I've said the same thing myself.  If they could do it, I'm sure they would.  They sure seem to believe that is the case.