# Echostar sues ViewTech



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

Todays online Journal has a large article about E* suing distributors of equipment that allows people to view without paying.

Sorry, I can not copy article.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

"Satellite-television broadcaster EchoStar Communications Corp., estimating that its signals are pirated at two million residences across North America, has gone on the offensive by filing suit against a Southern California distributor of set-top boxes and others it accuses of masterminding such schemes.

"The suit, filed in federal district court in San Diego, accuses the defendants of selling equipment and software designed to circumvent the company's security systems. The filing presents a glimpse into the latest twists in the shadowy world of stolen satellite-TV programming..."

Full article available to subscribers here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118514532530474375.html?mod=home_whats_news_us


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

And there's more, from Thursday's Denver Business Journal: "EchoStar and its related company, NagraStar LLC, ... filed suit against ViewTech Inc., its founder Jung Kwak and several unknown individuals on July 13.

"The claim alleges ViewTech sold a set-top box known as Viewsat that allowed customers to pick up DISH Network programming for free once they downloaded software to it.

"Kwak was linked to the sale and marketing of the boxes directly because he frequently participated in chats on Web sites devoted to pirating satellite television feeds..." Full story here: http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2007/07/16/daily45.html

ViewTech response: "...ViewTech and Mr. Kwak intend to vigorously defend against the baseless claims made by Echostar and Nagrastar. ... (Some competitors) have falsely stated that ViewTech's distributors, dealers and customers are on some sort of list of alleged infringers of supposedly copyrighted materials, and that they may be liable or named in a lawsuit filed against ViewTech. ... (But none) of ViewTech's distributors, dealers or customers are named or even identified in the allegations of the Complaint, or on any other list." Full letter (PDF) here: http://www.viewsatusa.com/Viewtech Lawyer Responds.pdf


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Cliff Notes of WSJ article not in the Business Journal article:
1. Echostar and independent consultant, The Carmel Group, places the number of of pirate households at approx, 2 million.
2. Lost revenue is estimated at approx $1 Billion per year.
3. Carmel reports that a total of 8 distributors have sold 2.1 million of the boxes in question worth approx $350 million retail.
4. Sales volume is not justified by legit purposes.
5. The success of the "FTA" product depends upon quickly providing the codes to break the Echostar/Nagra system.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

How can they possibly claim ANY "lost revenue", much less "$1 Billion per year"?

Do they really believe that all those folks would have gladly paid full price for every possible channel, if only they didn't have a bootleg box,.....all 2.1 million of them? Maybe they would not have subscribed at all.

And, Echostar pays for programming on the basis of how many paying subscribers they KNOW they have. So, if these 2.1 million alleged "thieves" are not on E*'s books, they are not costing Charlie ANY MONEY at all.

And, "stealing" usually infers that you are depriving someone of something. Had those 2.1 million people not received the programming, those microwaved ones and zeroes would have just sailed out across the universe, never to be heard from again. They certainly did not intercept these waves and prevent others from using them.

So, this is all just a "victimless crime", like "moving", or lying to a local station.
Good for the ViewTech people. They're fighting for our freedom!

_Some old timers may note that this post is similar to a long discussion/tirade that went on a few years ago, when we discussed why "moving hurts no one" (and is allowed on these kinds of forums), while "piracy is bad" (for the sat companies, at least) and is forbidden_ 

BTW, their claims (#4 and #5) about "legit purposes" and "success of the product" are misleading. FTA really is a legitimate use. Many, if not most, international channels are available FREE OF CHARGE via FTA. There are, literally, hundreds of channels that are both interesting to watch, as well as legal to watch.


----------



## rid0617 (Dec 27, 2004)

Richard King said:


> Cliff Notes of WSJ article not in the Business Journal article:
> 1. Echostar and independent consultant, The Carmel Group, places the number of of pirate households at approx, 2 million.
> 2. Lost revenue is estimated at approx $1 Billion per year.
> 3. Carmel reports that a total of 8 distributors have sold 2.1 million of the boxes in question worth approx $350 million retail.
> ...


According to Echostar and the company they paid to provide this. I have 2 Viewsat boxes only because the price was right and use them totally legally for free to air viewing. They make it sound like every one of them were sold only for illegal purposes. I currently recieve 455 channels world wide, approximately 200 speak english, are unscrambled and totally free after the initial investment. Total for my set up which includes 30 inch dish, SG2100 motor and receiver, right at $300. Satellite companies probably hate that fact Other enjoyment includes watching live remotes from satellite trucks all over the country. Apparently they got a copy of the RIAA play book.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I have no idea of the merits of this lawsuit, and I am specifically not speaking about it here. (rid0617, I don't have any reason to think Dish is trying to crush legitimate FTA.) But in general, it irks me that a number of pirates use "FTA" as a euphemism for piracy. It causes a lot of confusion over what a true, legal FTA receiver is supposed to do.

kenglish, I don't trust anyone's unsupported numbers, but do you believe that there exists at least one viewer out there who is using a pirate box who would otherwise subscribe? Every person like that represents true lost revenue.

About piracy vs. "moving", moving is lying in order to pay for different TV channels, but piracy is something in order to avoid paying for anything. Which makes it worse in my book.

Piracy is not stealing just as drunk driving is not reckless driving. They're all bad, but they're not the same. It's like sneaking into a movie theater; piracy cheats content creators and distributors out of what they deserve. :nono:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

SkyReport:


> In a letter addressed to the "FTA Community," the attorney for ViewTech said the company and its owner intend to fight the charges recently brought against it by EchoStar and Nagrastar. The complaint - filed in a southern California Federal District Court last week - claims ViewTech's free-to-air receivers allow consumers to illegally access DISH Network programming.
> 
> Manuel De La Cerra, legal representative for ViewTech and its owner Jung Kwak, said his client "intends to vigorously defend against the baseless claims made by EchoStar and Nagrastar." The attorney also said the company and Kwak are confident they will prevail in court as the lawsuit moves forward.
> 
> ...


www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Why is this a problem for Dish and not DirecTV?


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Different encryption methods.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

D* had the same problem until it upgraded its encryption.

From what I read, D* might not be "unhackable" but no one worries about it, because E* hacks are so easy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Doesn't D* use a non-standard MPEG format instead of true MPEG2?
That helps with security. Until they go MPEG4 and cards become easily available.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

bottom line (to me) is this . . . if they are sending out their product over the airwaves, and not providing adequate encryption, they are to blame. they (e*) made the choice that it would be cheaper to pursue this in court rather than upgrade their sat technology. so long as the consumer can legally purchase items that can decrypt their signal, the consumer is not to blame. additionally, if someone can manufacture something that can decrypt their signal, i don't think there is anything wrong with this either.

as stated above, if e* invested in the appropriate security, this would be a non-issue. yet another example of why e* is a second rate company.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

dhines said:


> bottom line (to me) is this . . . if they are sending out their product over the airwaves, and not providing adequate encryption, they are to blame. they (e*) made the choice that it would be cheaper to pursue this in court rather than upgrade their sat technology. so long as the consumer can legally purchase items that can decrypt their signal, the consumer is not to blame. additionally, if someone can manufacture something that can decrypt their signal, i don't think there is anything wrong with this either.
> 
> as stated above, if e* invested in the appropriate security, this would be a non-issue. yet another example of why e* is a second rate company.


So if someone steals a check out of my mail it is my fault for not having it mailed in a stainless steel vault?

Ridiculous.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I do agree that it reflects poorly on E* that they are too cheap to properly encrypt their signal, and prefer to depend on lawyers (who probably work on percentage) to dissuade piracy.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I finally got the full WSJ article in front of me, and I'm insulted.

According to the article, if I read it correctly, the lawsuit is based at least partly on logic and analysis provided by The Carmel Group of Monterey CA. Here's a summary of what The Carmel Group is supposed to have said:

* Almost 2.1 million FTA receivers have shipped in North America.
* Legitimate FTA programming is "of interest to only very limited audiences."
* Therefore, that many sales can't be justified by what the article termed "any conceivable legitimate uses."

What?? They're saying that it's effectively impossible that there are that many viewers who want international programming? religious programming? wild feeds of news reports and sporting events? classic TV shows and movies?

I hope that this is all just posturing and trying to work up a stronger argument against someone who reportedly hangs out on pirate forums.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

dhines said:


> bottom line (to me) is this . . . if they are sending out their product over the airwaves, and not providing adequate encryption, they are to blame. they (e*) made the choice that it would be cheaper to pursue this in court rather than upgrade their sat technology. so long as the consumer can legally purchase items that can decrypt their signal, the consumer is not to blame. additionally, if someone can manufacture something that can decrypt their signal, i don't think there is anything wrong with this either.


So if a guy picks the lock to your front door and gets inside... he can take whatever he wants because it is your fault for not having a lock that he couldn't pick?

Sure, it behooves a company like Dish to try and come up with something that can't be hacked... but history shows us that anything that can be protected can be broken eventually. This is the game of everyone vs the hackers... and it happens all over the world in various technology sectors. Company A comes up with new protection, Hacker A breaks it... Company A improves to new "unbreakable" code, Hacker A breaks that... and the cycle repeats.

IF Dish can prove any collusion between the company making/selling these FTA receivers and hackers, then Dish is absolutely right to go after them! IF it were just a case of certain FTA receivers being more popular with the hackers then I think Dish would have to limit the scope to just those stealing them.

IF the guy who breaks into your home does so with a Craftsman drill... I wouldn't expect Craftsman to be held accountable... BUT if Craftsman marketed and sold a "Lock-breaker 1000" and said it was good for breaking into people's homes... that would be a horse of a different color.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The DMCA doesn't speak to the adequacy or sophistication of encryption. It holds that any effort to defeat encryption is against the law.

Key to this will be proving that the software that defeats the encryption was being offered by ViewTech.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

HDMe said:


> So if a guy picks the lock to your front door and gets inside... he can take whatever he wants because it is your fault for not having a lock that he couldn't pick?
> 
> Sure, it behooves a company like Dish to try and come up with something that can't be hacked... but history shows us that anything that can be protected can be broken eventually. This is the game of everyone vs the hackers... and it happens all over the world in various technology sectors. Company A comes up with new protection, Hacker A breaks it... Company A improves to new "unbreakable" code, Hacker A breaks that... and the cycle repeats.
> 
> ...


the key point you are missing is this . . . if they were distributing their content over a private network, that would be theft. but, they are choosing to distribute it over open airwaves, hence your statements above are not applicable. more to the point, it would be as if i left my wallet in a public place and then wanted to sue the person that found it and did not give it back to me with all of its contents.

when a comapany or individual chooses to expose their products (or assets) to the public, it is their responsibility to protect them. my house is on my property, therefore no matter the type of security i have it is against the law for someone to take from me.

apples to oranges my friend (at least in my mind).


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

kenglish said:


> ...
> So, this is all just a "victimless crime", like "moving", or lying to a local station.
> ...


(Ranting deleted.) Yeah, and I shouldn't have to pay for long-distance telephone calls because they already have all the equipment and it cost nobody anything for me to use the service. Those Commie Pinkos.


----------



## bordeauxboy (May 18, 2007)

FTA Michael said:


> ...
> What?? They're saying that it's effectively impossible that there are that many viewers who want international programming? religious programming? wild feeds of news reports and sporting events? classic TV shows and movies?
> 
> I hope that this is all just posturing and trying to work up a stronger argument against someone who reportedly hangs out on pirate forums.


Certainly my impression has been that the bulk of FTA purchasers are doing so to get either religious programming or ethnic programming, with a good sized hobby crowd to go along with them. All of the dozen or so FTA dishes in my immediate neighborhood (even mine, when my wife gets hold of the remote  ) are used for either religious or ethnic programming. Find it difficult to believe that the primary market is theft, as much as people want to believe that, as demographic factors have been driving the FTA market growth.

There is of course still a sizable group of people that are interested in signal theft, and multiple support groups for those people. This lawsuit appears to be specifically aimed at some of those support groups; even if E* goes out of their way to mention Viewsat as many times as possible, they aren't actually being sued.



HDMe said:


> ...
> Sure, it behooves a company like Dish to try and come up with something that can't be hacked... but history shows us that anything that can be protected can be broken eventually. This is the game of everyone vs the hackers... and it happens all over the world in various technology sectors. Company A comes up with new protection, Hacker A breaks it... Company A improves to new "unbreakable" code, Hacker A breaks that... and the cycle repeats.
> 
> IF Dish can prove any collusion between the company making/selling these FTA receivers and hackers, then Dish is absolutely right to go after them! IF it were just a case of certain FTA receivers being more popular with the hackers then I think Dish would have to limit the scope to just those stealing them.
> ...


I have to wonder if part of the strategy on the part of E* is to use the discovery process to see if they can uncover their mole. When I was researching my FTA system it was incredible to me how often you trip over the less savory elements; but at one point I actually ran into a discussion comparing the source codes of the last two versions of the E* encryption routine. Which may explain the miraculously fast break of their codes.

Maybe E* should check the parking lot to see if any of the N* programmers are driving Ferraris  .


----------



## red hazard (Apr 11, 2004)

THIS IS BOVINE SCATOLOGY (BS) AT IT'S BEST. I OWN A PANSAT 6000HXC THAT IS CAPABLE OF BEING PROGRAMMED TO ILLEGALLY RECEIVE E* ENCRYPTED PROGRAMMING AND _IT IS USED TO RECEIVE ENCRYPTED PROGRAMMING_. I HAVE A CAM AND VIACCESS CARD FROM *THE ASIAN NETWORK* THAT I PAY A YEARLY PROGRAMMING FEE BECAUSE E* HAS SUCH FLAKY AND OVER-PRICED KOREAN PROGRAMMING. I WOULD BET THERE ARE MORE FOLKS LEGALLY RECEIVING ENCRYPTED FTA PROGRAMMING THAN THOSE USING FTA RECEIVERs FOR BREAKING E* ENCRYPTION.

IT APPEARS THAT MICROBRAIN HIRED PICOBRAIN.

AND BTW, I SUBSCRIBE TO THE AEP AND HD PACKAGE - - BUT THAT MAY NOT LAST LONG!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

dhines said:


> the key point you are missing is this . . . if they were distributing their content over a private network, that would be theft. but, they are choosing to distribute it over open airwaves, hence your statements above are not applicable. more to the point, it would be as if i left my wallet in a public place and then wanted to sue the person that found it and did not give it back to me with all of its contents.


Cellular telephones also transmit over open airwaves, but it is not permissable (by law) to intercept and eavesdrop on cellular phone conversations. There are also some military/government transmissions that the general public cannot monitor as they please.

There are some exceptions to the public airwaves that we, as a nation, have agreed to and are enforced by law that we can't just do anything we want to do with those public airwaves.

The battle over free decryption of encrypted "public" signals was fought and lost quite a while back when people first started putting up BUDs to pull down things that the networks never thought people would try and do... then came encryption.

They can't stop you from receiving everything under the sun... and they may not even be able to stop you from designing, reverse-engineering, and programming your own decryption box for your own use (mainly because it would be hard to catch you in the act)... but they absolutely can prosecute when you design and sell/install such devices for other people and especially if you profit from it... which is the case here, allegedly.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

HDMe said:


> ... and especially if you profit from it...


that is one piece that i am in complete agreement on; anything done for profit falls under completely different restrictions than private usage. not sure how that fits in my arguement though 

but back on point, just because certain consumers can use these boxes to break the law, well . . . that doesn't mean the product is illegal. that would be like the government going after ford because i was speeding in my truck. if these boxes can be used to break the law, then e* should lobby the government to put some type of restriction (built into the system when manufactured) that allows for legal usage, but blocks illegal usage. i just find it hypocritical, e* isn't doing everything it can on its end to also block people from cracking the encryption, yet they want to go after another another company because their product does not stop the user from cracking e*'s systems.

nuts, just nuts.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

kenglish said:


> How can they possibly claim ANY "lost revenue", much less "$1 Billion per year"?
> 
> So, this is all just a "victimless crime", like "moving", or lying to a local station.
> Good for the ViewTech people. They're fighting for our freedom!


 This is not a "victimless crime", we legitimate subscribers are the victims! If as little as 1/3 of the purchasers of a hacked receiver would subscribe legitimately than our subscription prices would not go up as fast as they have. I'm willing to bet many purchasers of these devices are unaware that this is not a legal/legitimate way to get subscription programming.

If E* sends out an unencrypted signals they are free game (NASA, Angel 1), OTOH if these "Viewsat" boxes decrypt channels such as USA or HBO it is not legitimate! If it give access to foreign programming, it better be from a non-E* satellite.
The foreign programs are encrypted on E*, just because the same network is FTA on some other bird does not give anyone the right to unencrypt the same network off E* if E* is encrypting.


----------



## maximum (Jun 23, 2004)

kenglish said:


> How can they possibly claim ANY "lost revenue", much less "$1 Billion per year"?
> ...
> And, Echostar pays for programming on the basis of how many paying subscribers they KNOW they have. So, if these 2.1 million alleged "thieves" are not on E*'s books, they are not costing Charlie ANY MONEY at all.


Yea, copying CDs and giving them to your friends isn't costing the music industry anything because you're not "stealing" any physical product from them. :lol: 


> And, "stealing" usually infers that you are depriving someone of something. Had those 2.1 million people not received the programming, those microwaved ones and zeroes would have just sailed out across the universe, never to be heard from again. They certainly did not intercept these waves and prevent others from using them.
> 
> So, this is all just a "victimless crime", like "moving", or lying to a local station.
> Good for the ViewTech people. They're fighting for our freedom!


So if someone "borrows" some tools from Home Depot's rental center without paying is it a "victimless crime" as long as the store doesn't know about it? 

In this case E* found out about it and they want to be paid for the use of their products.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dhines said:


> the key point you are missing is this . . . if they were distributing their content over a private network, that would be theft. but, they are choosing to distribute it over open airwaves, hence your statements above are not applicable.


E* has received a set of exclusive licenses to transmit their content _to their subscribers_ over their satellites. This is not a public network. While some channels are available unencrypted that does NOT mean that they are providing a public free service nor does the choice of a certain level (or lack thereof) of encryption on their _private_ system forfeit the right to charge for their programming and seek to prevent people from receiving that programming without paying the set charge.

These are not "open airwaves". There are specific penalties written into law for unscrambling content without permission. Unless one wishes to pay the penalty one should strictly follow those laws.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

I own a commercial building here in Vero Beach. I got a call this morning from one of my renters informing me that his unit had been broken into and that some automotive service equipment had been stolen. Of course, this is my fault because the dead bolt locks on the front door weren't enough to keep the thief (just as hackers are thieves) out. To get in they ripped apart the aluminum window frame that the deadbolt locks into. They REALLY wanted into the unit, just as the satellite thieves REALLY want into the encryption systems used by Dish and Directv. Looks like I get to buy another window frame and Dish gets to buy another encryption modification, both unnecessary expenses if there were no thieves.


----------



## JayS (Jul 24, 2007)

Jim5506 said:


> So if someone steals a check out of my mail it is my fault for not having it mailed in a stainless steel vault?
> 
> Ridiculous.


Actually, your comparision is ridiculous. To make them similar, you'd have to have a copy of your check sent to everyone's mailbox, then just have a very weak password to prevent others from reading it.

Don't get me wrong, I think selling a receiver and marketing it as a way to get free E* should be illegal, but you can hardly compare it to someone taking something that was sent to you and only you. I pay for E*, my neighbor has cable. But guess what, E*'s signal is crashing down on his roof just the same as it is to mine.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

dhines said:


> but back on point, just because certain consumers can use these boxes to break the law, well . . . that doesn't mean the product is illegal. that would be like the government going after ford because i was speeding in my truck. if these boxes can be used to break the law, then e* should lobby the government to put some type of restriction (built into the system when manufactured) that allows for legal usage, but blocks illegal usage. i just find it hypocritical, e* isn't doing everything it can on its end to also block people from cracking the encryption, yet they want to go after another another company because their product does not stop the user from cracking e*'s systems.


I think you may be missing what is going on here... Dish and Nagravision are alleging that ViewTech is knowingly selling and enabling their receivers to hack Dish signals. If it were just a matter of customers buying ViewTech equipment and modifying without ViewTech help, then this would go nowhere... and it may actually go nowhere anyway, but for now Dish is alleging that ViewTech is involved in the hacking. That's the reason for filing suit against them.

People have, as an example of your other thought, gone after gun manufacturers for making guns that were too easy to modify into illegal auto or semi-auto weapons. So there is also a precedent for holding a company responsible for making something that can easily be turned into something else. That may not be what this suit is alleging, but is another avenue for Dish to explore.

As for Dish "not doing everything it can"... well, they have changed encryption several times that I know of, and have had card swaps for their entire customerbase. I'd say this is doing a lot. Hackers find a way around stuff every day, and it forces companies to try again.

I'm curious why you want to blame Dish, who in this case is very much the victim, and not the potential thieves? Viewtech may not be guilty of anything... we'll find out later... but even so I find it hard to bash Dish for not protecting itself when they are trying. Any scenario where you wouldn't blame the victim of the crime?


----------



## rid0617 (Dec 27, 2004)

FTA MICHAEL SAID: "What?? They're saying that it's effectively impossible that there are that many viewers who want international programming? religious programming? wild feeds of news reports and sporting events? classic TV shows and movies?"

Your pretty close. I watch the religious programming no provider has, I am a amateur radio operator and am obsessed with receiving distant signals. Along with enjoying talking long distances I enjoy just as much watching distant signals. It facinates me that I can watch a television say in Moscow just as if I was sitting in my living room in Moscow. Another channel shows 23 hours a day of classic movies (30s through 50s) free of charge. FTA has a lot to offer without ever doing the first thing illegal.

The other poster is correct. Viewsat is not the only one that "could" be hacked. My other receiver is a Pansat 2800A which supposedly can be hacked easier than Viewsat. Amazing they didn't want to go after the larger company. Maybe they figured Pansat could put up a bigger fight.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Some of you seem to have missed my note. 

I'm just using the EXACT SAME kind of logic that we hear from forum members (as well as DBS executives) who say "moving" is OK, but "hacking" is not. We had a lot of fun with this same type of thing a few years ago.

Stealing seems to be stealing, only when you are the one being stolen from.

(And, "No, I will not copy your friends CDs, so they can store them as backups in your player. Not even if you tell me that musicians and record companies ARE wealthier than you."  )


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

"So if someone "borrows" some tools from Home Depot's rental center without paying is it a "victimless crime" as long as the store doesn't know about it? 
In this case E* found out about it and they want to be paid for the use of their products."

My "point" was, stealing satellite does not cost them any more than "moving" costs the local stations. If they don't have you on-record as a customer, they don't have to figure you in as a "customer" when they pay fees. And, the fact that you are getting to watch for free, does not physically prevent someone else from watching the same channel at the same time, like having possession of Home Depots' tools would stop them from renting them out.

(I wonder...does E* and D* pay for programming based on the number of "estimated" viewers, or just paying ones?)

Actually, it's more like....watching a Home Depot employee teach a class, then buying the same tools on e-bay  .

But, more importantly, all of the stuff I'm saying about "no harm" is being said "tongue firmly planted in cheek".

I DO wonder what the response would be, if broadcasters got a Court Order to see DBS companies' customer records, and went after the ones who "moved". 
H'mmmm....do "movers" avoid paying the state and local taxes that would be charged in their "old" home? If so, you'd think some Attorneys General would love to play that one. And, if DBS is charging tax in the "old" locale, to avoid tax-law hassles, while allowing the customer to claim residence in the "new" location (for DNS and "moving" priveledges), you'd think they'd be cited as being co-conspiriters in a fraud.


----------



## Zero327 (Oct 10, 2006)

The point is moot since Charlie's meatwagon wouldn't have gone after ViewSat unless he was positive he had more than enough proof to win. With this much press they're not taking Jung Kwak to court, they're going to crusify him to make an example of him to all the others. They're never going to get that $1B back out of him, but they figure if it discourages enough of these people in the future that investment will pay itself back over the next decade.

ViewSat, despite its idiot lawyer (one lawyer, against Charlie's Angels) is making self-rightous statements figuring that an injunction or two will save Jung and his paycheck from prison time. This whole case was over before Charlie's team even filed the first motion.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Viewtech may not be guilty of anything... we'll find out later...


 :lol: You are naive , Viewtech does not have any absolutely ANY chance. This is a question about such a huge money for D* than it does matter if Viewtech product can be a legally used.
Everybody has to pay "taxes" to such monstrous companies as E*, Dave, M$ otherwise you will be sued for potential lost of their profit.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Multichannel News picks up the story: http://multichannel.com/article/CA6462380.html

It covers a lot of the same ground with only a few new glimpses. Here's one of them:

"The suit, alleging violations of state and federal law, asks the court: to issue an injunction to bar Viewtech from trafficking in FTA receivers and pirate software; for an order impounding all electronic copies of the software; for damages; and for an accounting and restitution by Viewtech for all of the gain and profit it derived by its allegedly illegal actions."


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

James if recall rigth they have to provid public network like PBS, C-SPAN and etc and must be available unencrypted which I do belive was part of FCC rule which I think was under a Public Service Act or some Telecommunications Act and both D and E* has received permission to transmit which not an exclusive licenses like with Corporate Television Company.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SHS said:


> James if recall rigth they have to provid public network like PBS, C-SPAN and etc and must be available unencrypted which I do belive was part of FCC rule which I think was under a Public Service Act or some Telecommunications Act and both D and E* has received permission to transmit which not an exclusive licenses like with Corporate Television Company.


E* does not have to provide them unencrypted. The PI requirement is only that they provide channels to their _subscribers_ not to the general public.

The licenses are exclusive ... otherwise E* and D* could both solve their bandwidth problems (and cause others) but simply using each other's transponders.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

a35r said:


> :lol: You are naive , Viewtech does not have any absolutely ANY chance.


Not sure what naivety has to do with anything. I don't know enough about the case to form an opinion of guilt or innocence... and in this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So when talking about a pending case, words like "allegedly" should be used as I did unless and until guilt is proven.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The Rocky Mountain News picked up a slightly truncated version of the WSJ story in this morning's print edition, but I haven't found it online. Maybe they don't have online rights to it?

But the Denver Post wrote its own article, albeit covering the same ground as everyone else: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_6446810


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

You are only innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, the court of public opinion has no such restriction.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

And if it costs you more to defend your innocence in civil court than it costs to settle, then the question of innocence becomes less important.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

If it can be proven that they pre-programmed the receivers, or provided the software, to receive E* then I guess it is an open-and-shut case.

That would be the difference between this company and the other FTA manufacturers, who certainly know what happens to most of their receivers AFTER leaving the factory, but don't technically break the law.

And if ViewSat was selling receivers with an E* hack installed, they sure are stupid.


----------



## minorthr (Mar 18, 2003)

I would expect anyone who bought one of these to receive a nice letter from E* asking them to pay $3k or be sued just like D* did a few years ago.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

From: www.viewsatusa.com


> IMPORTANT > We do not provide or condone the use of third party software. Using third party software may be illegal and void product warranty. Do not email or call asking about DN, DTV, etc. Our satellite receivers are designed and intended for 100% legal use only. We will refuse sale to anyone whom we believe intends to use our product illegally or sell our products for illegal use.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

[


HDMe said:


> Not sure what naivety has to do with anything.


I am sorry if I unwillingly offended you. There is a big difference between the idealistic principals and real practice. As I recall almost all similar cases have been lost. I have been closely following them for the last few years. Remember how many web sites that decimated technical information about encryption have been shut down or decided to close by them self in order to avoid percussions. Current draconian DRM act is written in a such way that allows to persecute any body how has touched priceless "protected" junk; of course everything what is going today is for the sake of the poor artists (please look E! channel) in order to protect them (or their life stile) from the merciless "pirates".

I am not a TV fan, I do not want anything from DishNetwork or Directv on their terms or conditions, today there are many other source of information and many good move available on DVDs. New interesting technology always attracts me, so if I bought FAT receiver I and other 2.1 million persons are already "guilty until proven innocent" as potential pirates which cases DishNetwork profit losses indeed their hobby distract them from watching TV and the company that provides them this opportunity must be destroyed.
I have little doubt about the fate of the ViewTech company. On their place I would released the firmware source code along with short hardware description allowing anybody to customize his receiver and take responsibility for his actions.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I'm kind of interested in the FTA programming. Can anyone give me a link so that I can see what's available. 

The people that steal TV service know they're stealing...it's best to ignore their "justifications".
Just realize TV signals aren't the only thing they'd be likely to take.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Ken S said:


> I'm kind of interested in the FTA programming. Can anyone give me a link so that I can see what's available.


(cough) Check the sig below (cough)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

a35r said:


> I am sorry if I unwillingly offended you.


No need to apologise. I didn't take offense, I was just following-up.

I haven't looked much into FTA because I am kind of lazy and also because I know it would require more dishes and configurations than I want to deal with right now. Sometimes I am curious about what is out there FTA, but my Dish viewing keeps me fairly occupied.

I hope legitimate FTA viewers and companies don't lose-out over the piracy.. There are always bad apples that take advantage and I'd hate for the honest folk to get taken down too.

That's why I will wait to pass judgment until hearing how this court case goes. If ViewTech is guilty, then they deserve what they get.. but still a shame for their legitimate customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Michael P said:


> From: www.viewsatusa.com
> 
> 
> > IMPORTANT > We do not provide or condone the use of third party software. Using third party software may be illegal and void product warranty. Do not email or call asking about DN, DTV, etc. Our satellite receivers are designed and intended for 100% legal use only. We will refuse sale to anyone whom we believe intends to use our product illegally or sell our products for illegal use.


Doesn't every hack site have similar language? "We're not here to help you steal service. "


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I'm curious why you want to blame Dish, who in this case is very much the victim, and not the potential thieves? Viewtech may not be guilty of anything... we'll find out later... but even so I find it hard to bash Dish for not protecting itself when they are trying. Any scenario where you wouldn't blame the victim of the crime?


let me put it this way, i recognize that e* is the potential victim in this. but, IMO there are certian things that a victim should do . . . common sense kinds of things . . . that i feel e* has not done. why is it that dish is so easy to hack and d* is not? it is because d* invested in the right technologies to make hackers avoid trying to crack their security. now all of that being said, no matter how poorly e* implements its security, they are still the victim. but it just seems like they are going after another entity (viewstar) before they are taking care of their own issues.

if it is the case that viewstar distributed goods with the hack included, then by all means they should have the book thrown at them. but, that doesn't mean that e* doesn't still have the responsibility of doing its best to prevent people from hacking their system. to a certian extent people need to use common sense before they can play the role of a victim, and the same goes for companies.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is your _opinion_ that E* has not done enough to prevent hacking. You are, of course, welcome to have that opinion. I completely disagree with your opinion but you can believe what you believe if you wish.

E* uses several methods to get rid of hackers ... ECMs and card swaps included. Plus they have gone after professional hackers (those that hack in order to make money and not just as a hobby or to steal service for themselves) by exposing hacked boxes to the third party victims. They have also changed receiver designs to make it harder to tamper with the "smart cards". They have done what they can and have not stopped working against hackers.

This is the next logical step. Finding companies who are making receivers that are easily modified to steal service. Despite loud claims that this company does not support hacking they seem to be making plenty of money off of it. And that is the question that the courts will solve.

The receivers don't have to come "pre installed" to steal service in order to be _intended_ for the hack market. They just have to have signal theft as a common use.

Worse case scenario the company is shut down. The compromise is that ViewTech does more to prevent their receivers to be used for theft instead of making their living off of thieves. They should not be profiting from crime.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

I doubt very much that Dish would have gone after these people if they did not have several of their "customers" lined up and ready to testify that they bought the units from them with instructions on how to modify them. I suspect that a rather unsophisticated sting operation was done before any law suit was filed.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

By the time these things hit the news, I would suspect that Dish pretty well has their ducks in a line with regard to evidence. You would expect that they have a security group that is well aware and lurks on the hacking websites. Those seeking to profit from hacking are going to be providing info to point people to their products either directly or indirectly. When you do file a lawsuit, you make the numbers as large as you can so it is no surprise that they take the number of receivers sold times the going subscription rate. Not a lot different from the record companies going after exchange and download sites. Software companies fight the hacking problems continuously and some are very aggressive in pursuing unauthorized users. The philosophy is to go after the big fish and the little fish will scatter. At one point a lot of signal hackers were electronic experimenters who were comfortable building up their own gear and chasing these signals. Very difficult to chase these people. Now anyone who wants to write a check or give out a credit card number can buy the boxes, cards and downloads to get the signals. Along with that are lots of paper trails. It is in the news most every day whether it is Michael Vick and Dogfighting, A DC Madam with her list of Johns or a referee with a gambling problem that was shaving points. That same technology that makes it easy to hack also makes it easy to follow the electronic paper trails. 

..Doyle


----------



## wase4711 (Jun 21, 2007)

well said; its amazing how many people will visit those kind of sites and discuss the illegal things they are doing, and then be dumb enough to actually buy something with a credit card in their name, and think they have nothing to worry about...


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Michael P said:


> This is not a "victimless crime", we legitimate subscribers are the victims! If as little as 1/3 of the purchasers of a hacked receiver would subscribe legitimately than our subscription prices would not go up as fast as they have.


Wrong. The victims of piracy are the content owners and rights holders, not the legitimate subscribers.

Black markets reduce demand in legitimate markets and thereby drive prices in the legitimate markets down, not up. Reduced demand can, in turn, lead to reduced supply, or in this case, fewer choices and/or channel offerings, but not higher prices.

There are many reasons to oppose piracy, but lowering prices for legitimate subscribers is not one of them.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

joblo said:


> Wrong. The victims of piracy are the content owners and rights holders, not the legitimate subscribers.
> 
> Black markets reduce demand in legitimate markets and thereby drive prices in the legitimate markets down, not up. Reduced demand can, in turn, lead to reduced supply, or in this case, fewer choices and/or channel offerings, but not higher prices.
> 
> There are many reasons to oppose piracy, but lowering prices for legitimate subscribers is not one of them.


Well one could argue that E* is spending money to try to prevent pirates from stealing their signal in addition to spending money on lawyers to go after these people. Sounds like an added expense on E*'s bottom line that could cause our bills to go up.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

tsmacro said:


> Well one could argue that E* is spending money to try to prevent pirates from stealing their signal in addition to spending money on lawyers to go after these people. Sounds like an added expense on E*'s bottom line that could cause our bills to go up.


So, we should encourage sin, so grace may abound.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> So, we should encourage sin, so grace may abound.


Nothing like that, you were just saying that paying customers weren't victims because catching pirates wouldn't reduce their bill. I was just merely pointing out how E*'s fight against pirates cost them money and therefore their customers' as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hopefully we have not reached the tipping point where more is spent on prevention and prosecution than is made by converting illegal viewers (including third party victims of those selling pre-hacked "forever" satellite systems) to legit subscribers.

I'm not ready for E* to stop their anti-piracy efforts.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

The price Dish charges is what the market will bear. That number is based on where they want to position themselves competitively in the market with respect to Cable servcies and DirecTV. I doubt that Piracy factors at all in the pricing decisions. Same with CD and DVD manufacturers. They price to achieve a certain market share. Piracy is something they need to address to keep the pirates to minimum. As soon as Dish or Microsoft, or the film industry goes after a big pirate, there is press splash. It keeps a lot of potential pirates in line. 

...Doyle


----------



## babzog (Sep 20, 2006)

FTA Michael said:


> Piracy is not stealing just as drunk driving is not reckless driving. They're all bad, but they're not the same. It's like sneaking into a movie theater; piracy cheats content creators and distributors out of what they deserve. :nono:


Content creators make plenty from subscribers. In order for this to have merit, there would have to be virtually a 1-1 ratio of pirates to otherwise ligit subscribers. In order words, for the numbers to be true, ALL pirates would have to start paying for signal access. Most probably wouldn't... or would subscribe to something else (cable, dtv, off air, etc). What of the individual who subs to one provider and decodes the other simply because the tech is there to do it? Content creator is being paid.

It's a gray area and a case of what I think is a true victimless crime. Taxpayers are not being screwed, shareholders are still making money hand over fist, signals are still being sent, customers are still happy (or not, depending on the equipment quality). The only theoretical "problem" is that the dish company has *possibly *lost a few *potential *customers but those are *not *guaranteed customers anyway since there are choices in how one receives TV.

Anyway, I really don't care if they go after the "pirates" or not.. just as long as the price I pay for DTV stops climbing.. man it's getting pricey for access to decent non-shopping channels.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Ah, the old pirate argument that he wouldn't have paid for the service anyway. Do pirates really believe that makes it ethical and moral?

If piracy were to become easier and more commonplace, then more and more current subscribers would be enticed to stop paying and switch to illegal reception. That's why pay TV providers wage a constant struggle to identify and stop pirates.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wonder if that means it would be ok for me to steal a Ferrari, since I wouldn't buy one so stealing it wouldn't represent loss of revenue...


----------



## rid0617 (Dec 27, 2004)

tsmacro said:


> Well one could argue that E* is spending money to try to prevent pirates from stealing their signal in addition to spending money on lawyers to go after these people. Sounds like an added expense on E*'s bottom line that could cause our bills to go up.


But at the same time they outsourced all of their customer support and billing. Did you see the price drop to offset that expense?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

rid0617 said:


> But at the same time they outsourced all of their customer support and billing. Did you see the price drop to offset that expense?


As long as there is no downward pressure on prices, any savings from economies will go to stockholders not customers.


----------



## rid0617 (Dec 27, 2004)

Jim5506 said:


> As long as there is no downward pressure on prices, any savings from economies will go to stockholders not customers.


Exactly what is wrong with this country. Business is more worried about stock holders than customers. Also why I disconnected directv after 9 years. Last increase also took away channels and that finished me. Refuse to pay that much to watch reality shows and commercials. That's why I made the migration to FTA


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

The content providers lose money from pirates and it does result in less incentive for them to develop more programming.

Also, it is dishonest. One time, I noticed the cable box in front of my house was opened and there was a cable dangling in the air labeled with my house number and a corresponding empty jack. It was tempting to plug that cable in, but I choose not to do so (even though I hate Comcast & many of the content providers).

I guess this is also a good excuse to add this link for E*'s Pirate TV:


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I've never seen that on my receiver, so I guess my 500+ free-to-air channels are all legit.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

rid0617 said:


> But at the same time they outsourced all of their customer support and billing. Did you see the price drop to offset that expense?




If I call Dish for Technical Support I am routed to the Advanced Tech folks in VA - *every time that I call.*


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

SaltiDawg said:


> If I call Dish for Technical Support I am routed to the Advanced Tech folks in VA - *every time that I call.*


So am I. I think they do that only if you are a "high end" customer or have some other "flag" on your account. My elderly neighbors ALWAYS get some overseas call center and quite often ask me to call (from their phone) to try to figure out what the CSRs are saying. Last time they had a problem it took three calls (by me) to get their problem strightened out.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

Bill R said:


> So am I. I think they do that only if you are a "high end" customer or have some other "flag" on your account. ..


This is exactly what I was told - it actually the fact that I have 1 622 receiver. (I now have two of them, but the routing took place before when we only had one 622.)

I'm in MD - I do not know for a fact that *all* 622 customers across the nation have their Tech calls routed to VA. Just know that 100% of mine do.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

It's rare when I call, but it seems like I always get someone in the US as well (I "only" have a 625 and AT200/locals right now).


----------



## greg47 (Apr 12, 2006)

Echostar was warned by many people that their system was broken. Even the goverment stepped in and told them to beef up their security. Which they have failed to do. Their new and improved security was broken even before it was implemented with a card swap. Since they own the company making the security I would say something is wrong with that whole company. If you look at all the signals being transmitted there are many that are encrypted and have never been broken. Sounds like just another poorly run company with deep pockets abusing our legal system to cover up their own mistakes and poorly run company. If I was you Charlie I would quit my whining and kick Nagrastar in the ass and secure my recievers and my encryption with something thats a but harder to break. All of that money thats going to be wasted on high price laywers would be better spent on security.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

greg47 said:


> All of that money thats going to be wasted on high price laywers would be better spent on security.


This is actually a 6 of one, half dozen of the other argument. Either they spend money on new security and swapouts every year, or they spend money on lawyers to try and stop the most offensive of the pirates.

To say they shouldn't try to stop pirates is to say police shouldn't arrest people for breaking into your home... instead it is your fault because you should buy better locks.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

HDMe said:


> To say they shouldn't try to stop pirates is to say police shouldn't arrest people for breaking into your home... instead it is your fault because you should buy better locks.


I believe it not a correct comparison, nobody is breaking into E* D* home (tamper with their satellites or other equipment). When you have open windows in your house and somebody is watching your TV from the opposite side of the street or reading a book on the spotlight falling from your windows and you do not like that this is up to you either to install nontransparent glass (encrypt) or buy the curtains (make it invisible from some locations) or shut down TV set/light in your house.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps you don't know, but E* does encrypt (most of) their feeds so the locks _are_ in place. E* isn't complaining about reception of anything unscrambled.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

a35r said:


> I believe it not a correct comparison, nobody is breaking into E* D* home (tamper with their satellites or other equipment). When you have open windows in your house and somebody is watching your TV from the opposite side of the street or reading a book on the spotlight falling from your windows and you do not like that this is up to you either to install nontransparent glass (encrypt) or buy the curtains (make it invisible from some locations) or shut down TV set/light in your house.


The folks bashing Dish on their encryption are not saying Dish isn't encrypting... but saying they aren't using "good enough" encryption. That's why I was likening the situation to someone breaking past your door locks. Maybe a window is just as good of an example.

If you pull down the shades, but then your neighbor comes and peers through the shade using thermal binoculars... is that still ok? Or should you buy thermal shielding to foil heat-sensitive imaging technology too?

Bottom line is... no matter how good you protect, there will always eventually be someone who can break the protection if they want. It is one thing if you leave your doors wide open (no encryption).. but as long as you make an honest effort to lock your doors (encryption) then I find it hard to say you aren't doing "enough" and that somehow it is not the thief's fault.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Even if you door is unlocked or open, it is still a crime for unauthorized individuals to enter your home. Breaking and entering does not imply anything is actually broken, but that you broke the invisible barrier at the doorway and entered where you do not belong.

Likewise satellite pirates are stealing signal to which they have no authorization. They go where they know they should not go. They know what they do is illegal, but walk through the barrier anyway then explain their illegal activity away. Apologizers are as bad as the actual thieves, but maybe more cowardly.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

I suspect most "apologizers" are also thieves simply trying to justify their theft.


----------



## Chuck584 (Apr 17, 2007)

dhines said:


> bottom line (to me) is this . . . if they are sending out their product over the airwaves, and not providing adequate encryption, they are to blame. they (e*) made the choice that it would be cheaper to pursue this in court rather than upgrade their sat technology. so long as the consumer can legally purchase items that can decrypt their signal, the consumer is not to blame. additionally, if someone can manufacture something that can decrypt their signal, i don't think there is anything wrong with this either.
> 
> as stated above, if e* invested in the appropriate security, this would be a non-issue. yet another example of why e* is a second rate company.


So E* should charge the cost of better encryption to legitimate customers who pay for the service in order to deter thieves?

Using your reasoning, you should be very happy to pay more at the grocery store and big box store to cover the cost of additional security and to cover the losses incurred by shoplifters and "shrinkage" (employee theft).

Using your thinking, car owners should pay for unbreakable glass and tamper proof locks as well as higher insurance premiums so car thieves and people who steal from cars won't do it?

Using your thinking, you should add security to your home, high protection solid core steel doors, vault like locking arms, and hire private security to prevent thieves from stealing your possessions?

Theft of intellectual property is no different from common thievery. People with a lack of ethical and moral upbringing blame the victim for failing to stop their bad behavior.

As Dogbert would say to signal thieves: Bah!


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

Jim5506 said:


> EEven if you door is unlocked or open, it is still a crime for unauthorized individuals to enter your home. Breaking and entering does not imply anything is actually broken, but that you broke the invisible barrier at the doorway and entered where you do not belong.
> 
> Likewise satellite pirates are stealing signal to which they have no authorization. They go where they know they should not go. They know what they do is illegal, but walk through the barrier anyway then explain their illegal activity away. Apologizers are as bad as the actual thieves, but maybe more cowardly.


Another incorrect comparison, if the home door is unlocked and open it is not a crime to take look without entering inside, this is more an ethical question regarding intentions leading to such actions. I could agree if you made analogy between enter into an unlocked hose and gaining accesses to somebody's unprotected computer system or an attempt to disable the encryption of the DBS.

Stealing signal sounds terrible, however stealing it is illegal possession of somebody property. Are you ready to accuse somebody in stealing if somebody is using a spot of light from his neighbor windows or is looking over somebody shoulder a news paper in the subway.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

Chuck584 said:


> So E* should charge the cost of better encryption to legitimate customers who pay for the service in order to deter thieves?


Very good explanation on this question has been given by DoyleS:



DoyleS said:


> The price Dish charges is what the market will bear. That number is based on where they want to position themselves competitively in the market with respect to Cable servcies and DirecTV. I doubt that Piracy factors at all in the pricing decisions. Same with CD and DVD manufacturers. They price to achieve a certain market share. Piracy is something they need to address to keep the pirates to minimum. As soon as Dish or Microsoft, or the film industry goes after a big pirate, there is press splash. It keeps a lot of potential pirates in line.
> 
> ...Doyle


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

a35r said:


> Another incorrect comparison, if the home door is unlocked and open it is not a crime to take look without entering inside, this is more an ethical question regarding intentions leading to such actions. I could agree if you made analogy between enter into an unlocked hose and gaining accesses to somebody's unprotected computer system or an attempt to disable the encryption of the DBS.
> 
> Stealing signal sounds terrible, however stealing it is illegal possession of somebody property. Are you ready to accuse somebody in stealing if somebody is using a spot of light from his neighbor windows or is looking over somebody shoulder a news paper in the subway.


The comparison is very good.

So, stealing an encrypted satellite signal is just looking?

No, I'm ready to accuse someone of stealing if he intercepts unauthorized satellite signals.

If you receive encrypted satellite signals without paying for the service to the service provider, you are a thief and a scoundroll.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

a35r said:


> Another incorrect comparison, if the home door is unlocked *and open* it is not a crime to take look *without entering inside*, this is more an ethical question regarding intentions leading to such actions.


I'm glad you mentioned "open" and "without entering". Perhaps your neighbor does leave his door unlocked and open. Perhaps you walk up to it and without crossing the threshold you notice that he has thousands of DVDs. You cannot watch a single one of them unless you cross that threshold.

The hackers we are talking about _have_ crossed the threshold. They have walked inside, plopped down in a chair and are watching to their hearts content. They have crossed a line that even you admit is a crime.


> I could agree if you made analogy between enter into an unlocked hose and gaining accesses to somebody's unprotected computer system or an attempt to disable the encryption of the DBS.


That IS what the hackers are being accused of. Stay on topic. About the only thing that E* does that would fit any of the scenarios you are spinning are the very few unscrambled channels they have uplinked and the data channels that tell receivers where the channels are (and other information).

This thread is about ViewTech and how they are profiting from selling a receiver that (according to E*) primary is used to illegally decrypt scrambled signals.



> Stealing signal sounds terrible, however stealing it is illegal possession of somebody property. Are you ready to accuse somebody in stealing if somebody is using a spot of light from his neighbor windows or is looking over somebody shoulder a news paper in the subway.


Neither is applicable to the topic of this thread.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

Jim5506 said:


> The comparison is very good.
> 
> So, stealing an encrypted satellite signal is just looking?
> 
> ...


Signal is just an electromagnetic radiation like a light, you can find this definition in any physics manual.. Anything else depends of your processing, interpretation, presentation of this light. It is publicly available like light from the sun reflected by clouds (opposite to the signal from the cable for instance), and it is up to you what kind of images are inspired by cloud shapes. It is ridiculous if you try to tell people what they can do with the natural phenomena known as electromagnetic radiation.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

It is not the reception of the signal that is the crime.

It is the decryption and use of that private intellectual property that is criminal.

If you can receive and watch DishNetwork without decrypting the signal such as the NASA channel there is no problem, but if you watch an illegally decrypted channel you are a thief.

You can do whatever you want with the electromagnetic radiation, but if you run that same radiation through a processor that allows you to view the intellectual property to which you have no right, you've stepped over the line. You have broken and entered.

Use the radiation for a suntan, not for entertainment.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

a35r said:


> Signal is just an electromagnetic radiation like a light, you can find this definition in any physics manual.. Anything else depends of your processing, interpretation, presentation of this light. It is publicly available like light from the sun reflected by clouds (opposite to the signal from the cable for instance), and it is up to you what kind of images are inspired by cloud shapes. It is ridiculous if you try to tell people what they can do with the natural phenomena known as electromagnetic radiation.


So would I be correct then, assuming that you would think it is perfectly ok for your neighbor to spy on you with night vision goggles and thermal imaging? And also if he has a scanner and sits and listens to your phone conversations from your cellphone and/or wireless landline phone?

Somehow I suspect not.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

As I have said before, piracy is not stealing just as drunk driving is not reckless driving. They're all bad, but they're not the same. It's like sneaking into a movie theater; piracy cheats content creators and distributors out of what they deserve.

If the door to the back of a theater has a combination lock, is the theater owner at fault for not doing enough to keep out freeloaders? When the owner confronts someone who walked in the back door, should the sneak feel justified in saying, "Then why don't you have a better lock on your door?"


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

a35r said:


> It is ridiculous if you try to tell people what they can do with the natural phenomena known as electromagnetic radiation.


If TV programming were a natural phenomenon, I would consider that absolute proof of a Supreme Being. Especially if it carried a lot of sports. Alas, those signals from space that we can convert into something (sometimes) worth watching are thoroughly man-made, including their origins and the satellites that "reflect" them.

The DMCA outlaws any unauthorized decryption of such signals. If you want to consider that ridiculous, you're welcome to, but it remains the law of the land.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

piracy is not stealing just as drunk driving is not reckless driving

Let me see if I understand this:

Drunk driving/reckless driving
Piracy/stealing

So, are pirates using a foreign substance to impede their cognative processes causing them to do things they might not do otherwise.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

Jim5506 said:


> It is not the reception of the signal that is the crime.
> 
> It is the decryption and use of that private intellectual property that is criminal.
> 
> ...


I do not want to discuss here the vaguely defined intellectual property. This is a different subject.

Decryption this is an interpretation of the signal (magnetic radiation) on your opinion one type of interpretation let say displaying it with no decryption "as it is" like in form of noise is allowed and displaying the same signal in a different form after passing them a different processing module is a stilling. Here is the logic? What if completely different algorithm leads to the same similar to the decryption output? How different these algorithms or results should be to be legitimate? May be as far as E*, D*, etc. are happy? Otherwise they are going to sued you.



Jim5506 said:


> ... you've stepped over the line. You have broken and entered.


Personally I have not "stepped over the line", I am not so interested in priceless Hollywood intellectual property. All my discussion is hypothetic. The all idea that somebody can tell what you can and can not do with a natural phenomena is outrages for me.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

HDMe said:


> So would I be correct then, assuming that you would think it is perfectly ok for your neighbor to spy on you with night vision goggles and thermal imaging? And also if he has a scanner and sits and listens to your phone conversations from your cellphone and/or wireless landline phone?
> 
> Somehow I suspect not.


Spying with "night vision goggles and thermal imaging" or without them it is question of the moral. I do not want to overhear somebody conversation in a restaurant not because it is illegal, but because it is immoral, however your can not prohibit to look on you at public places or through a window if you do not appropriately shade it. When I use cell phone I am aware that it is an open media and my conversation is like conversation at a public place, I have no doubt that somebody is listening to me, this is just unavoidable, this is my choice.


----------



## zwinflame (Feb 23, 2007)

a35r said:


> Spying with "night vision goggles and thermal imaging" or without them it is question of the moral. I do not want to overhear somebody conversation in a restaurant not because it is illegal, but because it is immoral, however your can not prohibit to look on you at public places or through a window if you do not appropriately shade it. When I use cell phone I am aware that it is an open media and my conversation is like conversation at a public place, I have no doubt that somebody is listening to me, this is just unavoidable, this is my choice.


My 2c. Use FTA as a Hobby!!. All in all using FTA to decrypt is immoral. C'mon guys !! Think about it. I still subscribe to e* and would continue to do so. e* has gone long ways to get the international programming made available to us. Using FTA hurts their underlying profit. If using FTA, make every effort to keep/continue your existing programming.

Moreover the e*'s equipment is far superior to what the current FTA's are. The vip622's and 722's are a class apart. You cannot achieve this using FTA.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

BTY FTA is not piracy.

FTA is perfectly legal because FTA receivers do not try to decrypt anybodys encrypted signals.

FTA is NOT the problem - the problem is people using either modified FTA or modified DishNetwork equipment to decrypt unauthorized signals.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Ahem. FTA is exactly that - free-to-air, unscrambled, legal, legitimate TV. It is unfortunate that some pirates prefer to use it as a euphemism for piracy. Please do not muddy the issue by confusing these two terms.

Edit: Jim beat me to it. Thanks.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

FTA Michael said:


> If TV programming were a natural phenomenon, I would consider that absolute proof of a Supreme Being. Especially if it carried a lot of sports. Alas, those signals from space that we can convert into something (sometimes) worth watching are thoroughly man-made, including their origins and the satellites that "reflect" them.
> 
> The DMCA outlaws any unauthorized decryption of such signals. If you want to consider that ridiculous, you're welcome to, but it remains the law of the land.


I am talking about signals and not about "TV programming", surrounding us EM radiation like surrounding us an acoustic noise do not belong to anybody, this is natural phenomena. If you have chosen to the RF link as your communication channel be aware about its natural properties, and do not try to impose restriction on other people. If you do not want people to manipulate with your signal, do not radiate it on their properties, if you have chosen to do this do not complain, do not ask them to care about your business.
Yes, restrictions on what you can do with incoming electromagnetic radiation is ridiculous.

I would like to finish this discussion, the opinions of all participants are clear. It seams there is nothing to add here.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

a35r,

Here's the thing.. there are laws to protect encrypted content. If there were not such laws, then there would be no prosecution of people violating those laws. We can debate until we turn blue whether or not piracy=stealing... but the fact remains that it is illegal.

Also.. the manner of the lock/encryption in use does not make it any more correct to pirate a signal. The mere fact that it is encrypted makes it illegal to break that encryption.

IF it were not illegal to break the encryption, then there would be no point to the encryption and then everything would be free-to-air and companies like Dish would be forced to rely on the honor system. But laws were enacted to protect companies who encrypt their content from prying eyes.

The merits of what is "good enough" protection is a futile argument because hackers/pirates will almost inevitably find a way to break any code we can come up with to protect content via encryption... so technically speaking, there is never "enough" protection. But the mere fact that the content is encrypted, and intended for private subscribers only, means the company can protect itself if it discovers someone illegally decrypting the content.

You can choose to disagree with the law, and even violate it if you wish, but if caught violating the law there are penalties. Dish is in the process, in this case, of attempting to link a manufacturer/distributor of some devices used to pirate their signal to the actual theft of that signal.

Dish can't stop me from absorbing the electromagnetic radiation by standing outside on the earth. Dish would have to catch me in my home decrypting it for myself if I were ever to decide to do that, and this can be difficult... but if they could trace equipment a pirate uses to a company that encourages piracy, then they have a right to go after that company.. and that is what started this thread.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

a35r said:


> I am talking about signals and not about "TV programming", surrounding us EM radiation like surrounding us an acoustic noise do not belong to anybody, this is natural phenomena.


Signals are unnatural phenominon. Signal is information. TV programming is a signal. Noise is static. Noise is non-information. The radio/xray/etc electromagnetic waves that are used to transmit the signal are natural carriers. There is a reason that there is a phrase "signal-to-noise ratio". They are dissimilar.

Access to the information (signal) is something that one must pay for unless one is going to break the law and manipulate the carrier in such a way as to access the information.

Ink on paper is "natural" according to your definition, and therefor no one can stipulate that you must buy a book to access its information, nor can they prevent you from scanning in that book and selling it to other people because you're merely observing the electromagnetic radiation that bounces off of a page on a book and manipulating it into a different form. Nevertheless, that's illegal too.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> I do not want to discuss here the vaguely defined intellectual property.


I bet not.


> This is a different subject.


No, it's not.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It all seems off topic to me ...

What part of this tirade vs tirade is about ViewTech's equipment being used to illegally descramble programming?


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

If everyone used FTA to receive satellite signals then there would be no money to pay the providers and then there would be no signal to receive.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The "everyone" who matters here are the programmers.
There is no way that "everyone" is going to uplink their programming FTA.
That's how the providers protect their content and are able to make money.

If you are one of those people who are confused by the misuse of the term FTA and are applying it to unauthorized decryption of scrambled programming let me remind you that is NOT FTA.


----------



## babzog (Sep 20, 2006)

FTA Michael said:


> Ah, the old pirate argument that he wouldn't have paid for the service anyway. Do pirates really believe that makes it ethical and moral?


Irrelevant. The fact that you and I pay (too much for what we get, as far as I'm concerned) for TV regardless of the predictions of the Mayan calendar has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that others simply wouldn't (or might choose an alternative). Many people will hack TV simply because it's cheap (equipment-wise - the support and time costs to combat outages are not considered here) and doable. Making a commitment to a service provider is another story - there's time, expense, contracts... all that legal "crap" to deal with that most of us just do as a matter of course. Many couldn't be bothered.



FTA Michael said:


> If piracy were to become easier and more commonplace, then more and more current subscribers would be enticed to stop paying and switch to illegal reception. That's why pay TV providers wage a constant struggle to identify and stop pirates.


Pure speculation. The service providers have to make an appearance of stopping pirates in order to keep their shareholders happy... nothing more. Any public claims of loss are only speculative and are paper losses, at best.

Let's make a simple example... you buy an FTA receiver and hack it to "steal" Dish Network. Is it fair for Dish to subsequently count your household as contributing to their losses? What if you would prefer DirecTV? Or cable? Or other service provider? Or good ol' off air with no costs attached at all? You might have no intention of ever sending one penny to Dish - ever - yet they get to count you as contributing to their losses. Do you see the point? Dish's claims of loss are bollocks from the time the first beancounter woke up that fateful Monday morning with a nervous twitch.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Doesn't D* use a non-standard MPEG format instead of true MPEG2?
> That helps with security. Until they go MPEG4 and cards become easily available.


Nope....its standard MPEG2 and MPEG4.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

babzog said:


> Let's make a simple example... you buy an FTA receiver and hack it to "steal" Dish Network. Is it fair for Dish to subsequently count your household as contributing to their losses? What if you would prefer DirecTV? Or cable? Or other service provider? Or good ol' off air with no costs attached at all? You might have no intention of ever sending one penny to Dish - ever - yet they get to count you as contributing to their losses. Do you see the point? Dish's claims of loss are bollocks from the time the first beancounter woke up that fateful Monday morning with a nervous twitch.


You're still working really hard, basically, to try and defend someone who is stealing. Any time you have to work that hard at an explanation of why it isn't stealing, that all but proves you know it is stealing and just don't want to admit it.

The argument of whether Dish, in this case, is losing revenue or not is moot to some degree because maybe Thief A would pay for service if there was no way for him to steal it OR if the punishment for stealing were harsher.

The more people can get away with something, the more they do it... as evidenced by piracy of software and of signals. Piracy is very aptly taken from the pirates of old who would camp out in the middle of nowhere in the ocean and hijack ships without warning. The stuff those pirates would steal was stuff they wouldn't have bought anyway, so that makes it ok?

You can argue and defend piracy all you want... but the more you argue to defend it, the more you tip your hand that you really know it is wrong, and in this case illegal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

babzog said:


> Making a commitment to a service provider is another story - there's time, expense, contracts... all that legal "crap" to deal with that most of us just do as a matter of course. Many couldn't be bothered.


I have heard many excuses and rationalizations for signal theft ... I believe you are the first to say that hackers just can't be bothered to subscribe. They bother to research and buy the appropriate hardware to steal service and maintain that hardware through various sites that do allow hack information to be posted. But they can't be bothered to sign up for service?



babzog said:


> Let's make a simple example... you buy an FTA receiver and hack it to "steal" Dish Network. Is it fair for Dish to subsequently count your household as contributing to their losses? What if you would prefer DirecTV? Or cable? Or other service provider? Or good ol' off air with no costs attached at all? You might have no intention of ever sending one penny to Dish - ever - yet they get to count you as contributing to their losses. Do you see the point?


Both E* and D* should count stolen signals as losses ... even if it is a US Citizen stealing BEV or StarChoice. When it comes to encrypted subscription only content, unless one pays for what one watches one steals from all potential providers of that content.

In this case E* knows that these receivers were being used to steal content from their service ... any other theft going on is secondary and there is a direct connection between E*'s satellite space and the thief.

What you are saying (ignoring the physical vs intellectual property argument) is comparable to saying that you buy all of your DVDs from Best Buy and never buy one from WalMart. So if you rip off a DVD from WalMart it is OK because you would never have bought it from them. Yet that theft from WalMart hurts more than just them ... since you now have the DVD Best Buy and every other potential seller has lost that sale.

All is fair when it comes to theft. How can one take what is not theirs to take and then complain that someone "counts" their theft as a loss? If you don't want signal theft counted do everything you can to stop signal theft - Starting with rallying against those doing the stealing instead of downplaying their effect on the industry and society.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Nope....its standard MPEG2 and MPEG4.


Since when did D* convert to *standard* MPEG-2 for their SD signals? 
D* began operation before the MPEG-2 standard was finalized and so was "stuck" with a propitiatory system some have called "MPEG 1-1/2" .

The closest D* came to using true MPEG-2 was during the "merger era". Since the merger never happened I presumed that D* never switched (since switching would involve the obsolescence of millions of D* IRD's).

Here's proof: For those of you with FTA receivers, what do you see when looking at a D* satellite? In order to hack D* (at least in the past) you had to start with a D* box. Have things changed?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

There is one very simple thing that makes it "wrong" to not pay for what you are watching. It's illeagal. If it were not illegal the FBI (in the US) and the RCMP (in Canada) would not be conducting raids on those promoting the theft and on those on the promotors' customer lists. If it's not theft then you should be working to get the laws changed to permit it.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Illegal does not equal wrong, just as legal does not equal morally correct.

I never tried to justify anyone's claims of losses. Anyone filing a lawsuit is motivated to create as high a damage amount as he can. Does there exist one former Dish subscriber who unsubscribed because he bought a pirate receiver? If so, then Dish has at least some amount of actual damages.

If piracy were simple, easy, and well publicized, more Dish subs would become interested in dumping their subscriptions. This provides Dish sufficient motivation to reduce or eliminate piracy as much as possible.

Piracy is not stealing. Piracy involves taking something that the provider does not want you to have, it poisons the reputation of free satellite reception, and I truly dislike it. Piracy is bad karma.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

FTA Michael said:


> Piracy is not stealing. Piracy involves taking something that the provider does not want you to have...


You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Not a contradiction. If an artist doesn't want you to take a photo of his painting, but you do so anyway, that's taking something that the provider does not want you to have. But you did not steal the artist's painting.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

What don't people get about stealing satellite signal. It's not about taking a picture of a painting. It's about your sneaking into the theater an watching a movie without paying. It's about you copying CD's or DVDs for your friends so they don't have to buy them. It's about ILLEGALLY obtaining someone's work product, cheating them out of a portion of their livelihood.

If you illegally obtain satellite programming (not signal) your are cheating someone out of his legal compensation for his work product. And by FEDERAL LAW that is illegal - people go to jail and pay BIG fines for it.

What about the word illegal don't these people understand.

OH, I FORGOT:

"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Getting back to a civil tone (hopefully).

Say an artist paints a picture and hangs it in a gallery. The gallery rules say no photography ... and the gift shop does not sell photographs of that picture. The image is copyright of the artist. Making a copy of that painting is entirely his choice. One is violating copyright laws if one makes a copy without permission (beyond what "fair use" allows). Whether or not the word "theft" applies to taking an unauthorized photograph of that painting or if there is some better word for the act of stealing the image of that copyrighted item is a secondary question. It's wrong.

Perhaps this gallery takes precautions to make sure that photographs cannot be taken. At first they ask people not to use cameras. Then they ask people not to bring cameras into the gallery. Then they start searching visitors for cameras. There is no "fair use" of a camera in their facility. They progressively tighten security ... in the same way that E* has progressively tightened their encryption and security over the past ten years.

Now enter a company that makes cameras. They claim openly that their cameras are only made for legal pictures. Yet the design of their camera makes it easy to conceal and it is well known that their camera is one of the easiest to use for taking photos in galleries without being caught by the tightened security. An independent consultant looks at the number of cameras sold and calculates that the sales totals are much higher that what would be expected for people using that camera for legitimate purposes. The camera company is profiting from the illegal use of their cameras. So the gallery sues the camera manufacturer for making a camera so easily used to commit a crime.

That is where E* is with ViewTech ...


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> The camera company is profiting from the illegal use of their cameras. So the gallery sues the camera manufacturer for making a camera so easily used to commit a crime.
> 
> That is where E* is with ViewTech ...


Well, I certainly hope E* has a better case than that. There are lots of reasons why one might want a small camera, and I would hope that no camera manufacturer would be held liable because small cameras are easy to use surreptitiously.

More than that, there seems to be a hidden presumption in this debate that law enforcement just falls from the sky like manna from heaven. It doesn't.

Suppose you find that the car you just bought has a defective locking mechanism that makes it difficult to remove and insert the ignition key, but because you live a rural, low crime area, you decide to deal with this by leaving the car unlocked with the key in the ignition, rather than going through the expense and hassle of having the lock fixed.

Now suppose some local kid notices your "available" car and decides to use it to take girls parking on random Saturday nights, always returning the car by Sunday morning. How much time and energy should local law enforcement, which operates on a shoestring budget because it's a low crime area, have to spend "solving" this case? Should they have to work extra shifts, staking out your house on Saturday nights so they can catch the joy rider in the act? Should they dust your car for prints and fingerprint all the local youth?

Because this is where we seem to be with E*. They invested in a new security system that turned out not to work as advertised, and so now apparently it's not too difficult to use modified FTA receivers to watch their programming. But the piracy rate is low and fixing the security would be an expensive hassle, so E* chooses instead to file overbroad lawsuits.

Sorry, but I think law enforcement and the courts have more important things to do. I'm sorry E* invested in a flawed security system, but I don't think that taxpayers and/or legitimate businesses should have to pay the price when people and/or companies choose not to fix their broken locks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Your example fails because E* is not expecting "law enforcement" to go out and find who is "joyriding". E* is accusing a specific company ... in your example that would be like telling "law enforcement" you saw a specific kid take the car.

Your example also fails because E* is not leaving the keys in the ignition. ViewTech has designed a system that can (in effect) "start E*'s car" and seems to have limited sales beyond those who wish to use it to "start E*'s car".

E* is doing all they can to encrypt the signal and keep people who do not subscribe out. Which is MUCH MORE than they are required to do under the law.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Now enter a company that makes cameras. They claim openly that their cameras are only made for legal pictures. Yet the design of their camera makes it easy to conceal and it is well known that their camera is one of the easiest to use for taking photos in galleries without being caught by the tightened security. An independent consultant looks at the number of cameras sold and calculates that the sales totals are much higher that what would be expected for people using that camera for legitimate purposes. The camera company is profiting from the illegal use of their cameras. So the gallery sues the camera manufacturer for making a camera so easily used to commit a crime.
> 
> That is where E* is with ViewTech ...


Actually, if I read things correctly... I think Dish is one step beyond that with ViewTech.

To extend your example...

If the camera company sells the camera, and includes along with it the schedule of guard transition at the museum and a list of tips on how to distract guards... then you can go after the camera company.

ViewTech making a product that can be hacked to steal Dish service is no more culpable (in my mind) than Dish not doing "enough" to secure their system. I wouldn't blame ViewTech if people hack their boxes for a different purpose any more than I would accuse Dish of not trying hard enough to encrypt their data.

But... Dish is accusing ViewTech not just of making a hackable product, but in fact being in league with the actual hackers either by providing the software and hack themselves or encouraging their devices be used in that way. Not sure what evidence they have, but that is why I assumed Dish was going after ViewTech.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Michael P said:


> Since when did D* convert to *standard* MPEG-2 for their SD signals?
> D* began operation before the MPEG-2 standard was finalized and so was "stuck" with a propitiatory system some have called "MPEG 1-1/2" .
> 
> The closest D* came to using true MPEG-2 was during the "merger era". Since the merger never happened I presumed that D* never switched (since switching would involve the obsolescence of millions of D* IRD's).
> ...


I can't tell you when - all I can tell you is its been MPEG2 for the last 3 years - and anyone with a R5000HD unit can clearly see that.

Is there some specific channel you would like me to post specs on to prove you are wrong?

The only thing D* does that is not standard is broadcast SD in SD-LITE @ 480x480 - the lowest resolution of any MSO, including Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Isn't the R5000HD passing a single channel feed? The alteration that D* made to create "MPEG1.5" was to allow multiple feeds on the same stream (before MPEG2 became a standard way of doing that - E* came along later and used MPEG2 instead of needing to create a standard). MPEG4 is an improvement to MPEG2.

The R5000HD's interface is AFTER the program stream is pulled from the "MPEG1.5"/MPEG2/MPEG4 stream and decrypted by the receiver. Based on the statements on their website, it appears that recording SD from D* is a relatively new feature.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Isn't the R5000HD passing a single channel feed? The alteration that D* made to create "MPEG1.5" was to allow multiple feeds on the same stream (before MPEG2 became a standard way of doing that - E* came along later and used MPEG2 instead of needing to create a standard). MPEG4 is an improvement to MPEG2.
> 
> The R5000HD's interface is AFTER the program stream is pulled from the "MPEG1.5"/MPEG2/MPEG4 stream and decrypted by the receiver. Based on the statements on their website, it appears that recording SD from D* is a relatively new feature.


R5000HD is passing the video and audio elementals through a parallel connection (in the case of D*) to their board. Depending on the service, it can pass either the single channel or the entire transponder, but only the channel you are on and subscribed to is decrypted.

For example, with E* and HBO-HD East on 148W where it is identical in rate and resolution to the C-Band distribution feed, the transfer rate runs in the 3k area - but using the R5000HD on the C Band feed of HBO-HD, the transfer rate runs in the 7k area, as it is feeding both the HBO-HD East and West (even though the West is not decrypted if you are on East....and vice versa).

If the R5000HD was changing the format, then it would always capture in MPEG2 which it doesn't. In fact, it has no way to capture MPEG2 channels in MPEG4 and vice versa.

The R5000HD is a relatively new unit in itself, compared to the 169time unit.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Getting the signals down to a MPEG2 or MPEG4 stream that the R5000HD can use is the key since you're not getting the entire mux passed on via E* or D* receivers. Only the portion of the stream that has already been descrambled by an authorized receiver. It is interesting that the C Band receiver passes through the scrambled mux as well, but not really applicable to this OT part of the discussion.

The main point is what people can do without subscribing. The accusation is being made that E* is easier to hack than D* and part of that accusation lies in the way that the streams are encoded on the satellite. The question would be what someone could do with a satellite DVB card not what they could do with an after descrambling add on to their receivers. Can D* feeds be received on a standard cheap PC card? That is the issue. (Simple answers preferred.)

If they can be received on the same or similar cards as E* programming can be received on then if the issue of why E* is hacked more than D* can be pursued. Perhaps E* programming is just better. In any case, that is a question for another thread and likely not a question we can pursue too deeply due to our restrictions on discussing hacking.

:backtotop

Let's get this thread back to topic ... ViewTech and the allegation by E*.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

When you think about it... "why is Dish hacked more often than DirecTV", if a true statement, could simply be because more people want Dish! 

Seriously.. even thieves do not steal things they don't want. Thieves tend to steal good stuff... so you could make an argument that more people want Dish than DirecTV.

Not good for Dish, since they see no money... but it is a sort-of form of flattery in a way.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

In this case _subscription_ would be the sincerest form of flatery. 

I received my simple answer by PM ... yes, a simple card can receive D* as easily as E*. Why people prefer to hack E* is a question for another thread (if at all).


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Because D* changes things more often / makes it harder to find the new keys than E* ? That would be my guess.


----------



## babzog (Sep 20, 2006)

James Long said:


> Both E* and D* should count stolen signals as losses ... even if it is a US Citizen stealing BEV or StarChoice. When it comes to encrypted subscription only content, unless one pays for what one watches one steals from all potential providers of that content.


"Unless one pays".... that's a pretty far-reaching and assumptive statement you made there.

So what of off-air? Or true FTA? If I watch an episode of Friends without paying anyone by either tuning my rabbit ears or roof antennae or setting up an FTA receiver (legitimately), I've watched content.. but I haven't paid for it. Does Echostar then have a gripe with me if they also carry that local channel on their service? What about Directv? Both? What if I subscribe to Directv but watch that channel off-air? Are they then "hurt"? Is Echostar? What about my cable company - by subscribing to a satellite provider, I'm hurting my cable company. By watching off-air, I'm hurting all for-pay content providers... should I feel a pang of guilt for not increasing their share value?



James Long said:


> What you are saying (ignoring the physical vs intellectual property argument) is comparable to saying that you buy all of your DVDs from Best Buy and never buy one from WalMart. So if you rip off a DVD from WalMart it is OK because you would never have bought it from them. Yet that theft from WalMart hurts more than just them ... since you now have the DVD Best Buy and every other potential seller has lost that sale.


Completely different - and you cannot ignore the physical argument, it's germaine to the entire conversation. A DVD is a stock item, something you can hold in your hand. Someone paid for that copy of the DVD and that is the only individual copy of that DVD - there might be other copies, but that one in your hand is itself unique, no other copy in the stack of DVDs is exactly like it.

With signals, the exact same signal is everywhere - in your backyard and in mine. Once transmitted, the "shipping" is done. It's not a hard item that can be taken away and kept for a period of time or resold or pawned.

I think the prime argument, aside from those I've presented before, which are more abstract, is still cost. Some will say that $60 a month for shopping channels, a few specialty cable channels, religious channels and a few others is acceptable - what the market will bear, they will tell you. I think differently. The market is obviously not bearing it, hence the problem with signal "piracy".

Consider smuggling... cigarette smuggling was a big problem in Canada (Ontario) a few years ago due to oppresively high taxes. When the government of the day chopped the taxes, the smuggling problem virtually disappeared overnight. I think many people are in the same boat via a vis paid-for TV - the monthly cost is more than what they feel it's worth paying. Doesn't make it right.. just makes it a fact. If the content distributors chopped prices, I bet you a hundred donuts that the piracy problem will drop quite significantly. Echostar and Directv and cable will pick up hundreds of subscribers (making up any paper losses from price chopping) and will then only have to contend with the few hardcore criminals who refuse to pay anything.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> In this case _subscription_ would be the sincerest form of flatery.
> 
> I received my simple answer by PM ... yes, a simple card can receive D* as easily as E*. Why people prefer to hack E* is a question for another thread (if at all).


Very simple, D* has a secure system and E* doesn't, making E* easier to hack. If I recall correctly, didn't Dish/Nagravision sue D* a while back implying that they had in fact broken the new system before it was even released and sent out the break to some hacking sites? I don't think I was hallucinating at the time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

babzog said:


> "Unless one pays".... that's a pretty far-reaching and assumptive statement you made there.
> 
> So what of off-air? Or true FTA? If I watch an episode of Friends without paying anyone by either tuning my rabbit ears or roof antennae or setting up an FTA receiver (legitimately), I've watched content.. but I haven't paid for it. Does Echostar then have a gripe with me if they also carry that local channel on their service? What about Directv? Both? What if I subscribe to Directv but watch that channel off-air? Are they then "hurt"? Is Echostar? What about my cable company - by subscribing to a satellite provider, I'm hurting my cable company. By watching off-air, I'm hurting all for-pay content providers... should I feel a pang of guilt for not increasing their share value?


You're arguing a silly argument here. Watching OTA or FTA is not the same as stealing programming that you are supposed to pay for. There are lots of legitimate FTA channels and FTA hardware. There are lots of people who enjoy legitimate FTA programming.

I fail to see how anyone can defend or legitimize or excuse stealing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

babzog said:


> So what of off-air? Or true FTA?


Absolutely irrelevant. We're discussing scrambled satellite TV here. All these silly rabbit trails to get this thread off topic are simply annoying!

OTA is a completely different system with different rules. True FTA are channels that are a) unscrambled and b) are offered by the programmer without a subscription system. These terms do not describe the unauthorized decryption of satellite TV.

E* places their content on satellite. They have a system that allows people to watch their services via legitimate subscription. They also run encryption on most of their content. How strong that encryption is DOES NOT MATTER. It remains a violation of law to watch that content without authorization. End of story.


----------



## redbird (May 9, 2005)

"Why is Dish hacked more often than DirecTV"

Dish uses the DVB standard so tens of millions of FTA DVB receivers made primarily for Europe are readily available. Just a mater of some clever re-programming to defeat the encryption.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> If they can be received on the same or similar cards as E* programming can be received on then if the issue of why E* is hacked more than D* can be pursued. Perhaps E* programming is just better. In any case, that is a question for another thread and likely not a question we can pursue too deeply due to our restrictions on discussing hacking.


No, its very simple if you review history.

A disgruntled BEV employee released the keys which allowed hackers to reverse engineer everything.

BEV (using the same encryption as E*) was then broken and Dish was broken several weeks later.

Thus far, no ex-employee has made a widespread distribution of the D* encryption scheme to allow the same.

So for all the explanations that E* was hacked because it's better and more thieves want it - is pure BS.

It was busted because it was handed to them.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

scooper said:


> Because D* changes things more often / makes it harder to find the new keys than E* ? That would be my guess.


What question are you "answering?"


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

FTA Michael said:


> Illegal does not equal wrong ...


OMG. Your parents must be proud. :grin:


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> No, its very simple if you review history.
> 
> A disgruntled BEV employee released the keys which allowed hackers to reverse engineer everything.
> 
> ...


And although currently the E* system was broken, previously it was D* that was more often broken into. Hackers have broken into both current systems. The current issue is the accusation that ViewTech is making it extremely easy to hack into E*.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tnsprin said:


> The current issue is the accusation that ViewTech is making it extremely easy to hack into E*.


EXACTLY!

Which is why the topic of "which system is easier to hack" is a topic for another thread (if at all for a forum that does not allow hacking discussions). We need to get back to the issue ... which is NOT how good or bad E*'s system is (an irrelevant question) but how ViewTech is making money by creating and selling a receiver that (allegedly) makes hacking E* easier and is profiting from this crime.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

babzog said:


> "Unless one pays".... that's a pretty far-reaching and assumptive statement you made there.
> 
> So what of off-air? Or true FTA? If I watch an episode of Friends without paying anyone by either tuning my rabbit ears or roof antennae or setting up an FTA receiver (legitimately), I've watched content.. but I haven't paid for it.


Because the OTA broadcasters gave you permission to watch that content without paying for it. It's not only legal, it's encouraged.



> Does Echostar then have a gripe with me if they also carry that local channel on their service? What about Directv? Both? What if I subscribe to Directv but watch that channel off-air? Are they then "hurt"? Is Echostar? What about my cable company - by subscribing to a satellite provider, I'm hurting my cable company. By watching off-air, I'm hurting all for-pay content providers... should I feel a pang of guilt for not increasing their share value?


Echostar and DirectTv are paying for the privilege or rebroadcasting the OTA content. While they might be financially hurt in the abstract sense if you choose not to subscribe to their service, they have no standing to recover money from it because they don't own sole distribution rights. The only rights that Echostar and DirectTv have are transmission rights and can charge *for the use of their satellites and the associated encryption/decryption that allows the signal to be anything but background radiation*.

If you choose to get the content over the internet from abc.com, then the local abc affiliate is also harmed due to decreased advertising revenue, but again they have no standing because they are merely a transmission medium and as content owners ABC has every right to distribute the content in other ways such as streaming video or selling DVDs, barring agreements with stations and such that would restrict it.



> Completely different - and you cannot ignore the physical argument, it's germaine to the entire conversation. A DVD is a stock item, something you can hold in your hand. Someone paid for that copy of the DVD and that is the only individual copy of that DVD - there might be other copies, but that one in your hand is itself unique, no other copy in the stack of DVDs is exactly like it.


The physical cost of creating the DVD and shipping it amount to pennies. The bulk of the value of the DVD is the content. Stealing a scratched DVD is stealing nothing because it has no value any longer. The phyiscal DVD is just a method of moving content from one place to another and being reimbursed for access to that content.



> With signals, the exact same signal is everywhere - in your backyard and in mine. Once transmitted, the "shipping" is done. It's not a hard item that can be taken away and kept for a period of time or resold or pawned.


So? That's like saying that sneaking into an amusement park and using their equipment all day without paying for access isn't wrong. After all, you being there didn't raise their costs one iota.



> I think many people are in the same boat via a vis paid-for TV - the monthly cost is more than what they feel it's worth paying. Doesn't make it right.. just makes it a fact.


Sure... the "it's outrageous to pay $50k for a BMW so I'll just joyride in one every weekend and bring it back." arguement. It's not stealing... it's just using. BMW wasn't ever going to sell you one anyway, so it's not as if they lost a sale or anything...


----------



## babzog (Sep 20, 2006)

The physical cost of creating the DVD and shipping it amount to pennies. The bulk of the value of the DVD is the content. Stealing a scratched DVD is stealing nothing because it has no value any longer. The phyiscal DVD is just a method of moving content from one place to another and being reimbursed for access to that content.[/QUOTE]

Not really, but now we're getting to minor nits. The DVD can be repaired, can be returned to the distributor (and then to the manufacturer), etc. There is always value is something... even if it's "garbage" to you and I.



koralis said:


> So? That's like saying that sneaking into an amusement park and using their equipment all day without paying for access isn't wrong. After all, you being there didn't raise their costs one iota.


Actually, it would. The extra ride time and your weight adding to the stresses on the machines, increasing wear and reducing the time to that maintenance overhaul. Because you're actually dealing with "something", the costs become real. Echostar sends out the very same signal regardless of whether 0 or 100 million people steal it. Their costs remain precisely the same.



koralis said:


> Sure... the "it's outrageous to pay $50k for a BMW so I'll just joyride in one every weekend and bring it back." arguement. It's not stealing... it's just using. BMW wasn't ever going to sell you one anyway, so it's not as if they lost a sale or anything...


Does not pertain... a BMW is a physical thing... a signal is not.

I'm not condoning it (nor do I really care about it, either, so this is the last post from me on it), just arguing from the devil's advocate perspective.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

By some people's "definitions"... it sounds like it would be ok if:

I see a book in the store that is a best seller at $24.95, and I go to a reading of that book. The person reading the book is speaking and the voice transmits over the air that is free and public to you and I, and there is no encryption... so I can listen to the book reading, and record it... and then I can go home and write it down, and sell it myself for $9.95 and I am not stealing because it was "broadcast" over the public air waves, and sound is a natural phenomenon.

But that sounds silly doesn't it?

I hope so.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

HDMe said:


> By some people's "definitions"... it sounds like it would be ok if:
> 
> ... sell it myself for $9.95 and I am not stealing because it was "broadcast" over the public air waves, and sound is a natural phenomenon.
> 
> ...


I did not want to continue this discussion mainly because my points has not been heard, but it seams that the last post is directed to my side. I have never mentioned that it is morally acceptable to sell somebody work for profit.
My points were that it is illogical to compare decoding of the signal with breaking into somebody house. The broadcast company try to create such perception. I could understand if your compare breaking in with tampering somebody equipment, like disabling the signal encryption on satellite, connection a cable to the TV cable network even modification of the leased receiver general speaking doing something with a tangible entity that do not belong to you.
To me receiving of the signal is like looking to the house window, if you do not like it you have to shad the window or make it nontransparent other words encrypt the signal outgoing from your window, anyway you should not accuse anybody if he stays away from your house and just looking in your direction our eyes are already the extremely complicated decoders, so instead of taking care about your privacy start prosecuting people for decoding the signals from your house. Yes, light is a natural phenomenon and nobody should impose restrictions on interpretation of the incoming radiation.
I have not touched any moral aspect of such actions, everybody has its own level of morality, this is a different question, however I would not put the equal sign between law, fairness and moral. A law can be unfair and immoral especially if it is inspired by BIG BIG money.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

I'm sick of thieves pompously justifying their actions. This thread's subject is not about prosecuting individual signal thieves but about going after a company accused of providing equipment and software to enable that theft. I hope that they are nailed big time IF that is what they are doing.

BTW - It's moral to steal from BIG money? What?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laws are there to protect all size of businesses. Unfortunately the cost of bringing and winning a suit tends to limit these things to big corporations going after small frys or each other.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

If you fail to see both the immorality AND the illegality of receiving and decrypting encrypted satellite broadcasts then you need to re-examine your moral compass.

You have been corrupted by the creeping evil that's pervasive in our society.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Just keep stealing from the broadcasters. Leave the satellite guys alone.


----------



## killzone (Dec 27, 2006)

HDMe said:


> So if a guy picks the lock to your front door and gets inside... he can take whatever he wants because it is your fault for not having a lock that he couldn't pick?


Actually there is a big difference. Picking your lock and going into your home involves someone comming over to your house and bypassing security to get in. The original poster is saying that the data stream is being sent right to his house. If they don't want him messing with the data (i.e. decrypting it, then don't send it to his house. If you decided to store some electronic device in everyone's home and tell them they have no choice but to let it stay there, would you honestly expect people to not mess with it?


----------



## killzone (Dec 27, 2006)

HDMe said:


> By some people's "definitions"... it sounds like it would be ok if:
> 
> I see a book in the store that is a best seller at $24.95, and I go to a reading of that book. The person reading the book is speaking and the voice transmits over the air that is free and public to you and I, and there is no encryption... so I can listen to the book reading, and record it... and then I can go home and write it down, and sell it myself for $9.95 and I am not stealing because it was "broadcast" over the public air waves, and sound is a natural phenomenon.
> 
> ...


Performances are not allowed to be recorded. I don't think the issue is just public air waves, it's the location where it's going. If somehow these readings were invading your house should it be illegal to sell you a "language" instructional CD such that you can understand the reading?


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> If you fail to see both the immorality AND the illegality of receiving and decrypting encrypted satellite broadcasts then you need to re-examine your moral compass.


I said about the same thing (and mentioned the poster's name) and my post was deleted.


----------



## killzone (Dec 27, 2006)

koralis said:


> So? That's like saying that sneaking into an amusement park and using their equipment all day without paying for access isn't wrong. After all, you being there didn't raise their costs one iota.


Once again there is a big difference between "sneaking" someplace and sitting in your home and having it sent to you. If they decided to build that amusement park around my house, such that I just have to walk into my backyard and there is a ride for me to go on (In my yard and on my property), I'd hardly call that sneaking in. Perhaps they should be paying me for the right to set those rides up in my yard?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bill R said:


> I said about the same thing (and mentioned the poster's name) and my post was deleted.


Not quite the same thing (the person you named did not say there was nothing wrong with illegal decryption), but you're right about this thread needing to get on topic (E* vs VIEWTECH) fast or it will be shut down. We're getting into the circular off topic arguments again.

:backtotop


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Speaking of being on topic... has anyone heard anything new with regards to the lawsuit?


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

Nothing new yet, but here's my analysis:

DN wants to stamp out piracy. But they would also like to see all FTA STBs removed from the market, regardless of what people use them for, because then the thousands of people who can't get cable or an OTA signal would be forced to turn to the pay sat. companies to watch any TV whatsoever. No FTA on satellite anymore like in Europe. Charlie hasn't said anything to the contrary.

In short, they just want FTA a$$ and cash.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Art7220 said:


> Nothing new yet, but here's my analysis:
> 
> DN wants to stamp out piracy.


We'll take this for granted


> But they would also like to see all FTA STBs removed from the market, regardless of what people use them for, because then the thousands of people who can't get cable or an OTA signal would be forced to turn to the pay sat. companies to watch any TV whatsoever. No FTA on satellite anymore like in Europe. Charlie hasn't said anything to the contrary.


That's a silly argument. Because I don't tell everyone that I meet that I don't like plastic grocery bags doesn't mean that I want them outlawed. Chances are pretty good that, as an Oregon resident, I support the wood products industry, but you don't know my position on "paper or plastic" unless I come out and say so.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Art7220 said:


> Nothing new yet, but here's my analysis:
> 
> DN wants to stamp out piracy.


Absolutely ... which is why we see them go after the big violators: the commercial pirates who sell pirated boxes to others and the vendors of the tools that make piracy easier. They don't want _anyone_ making money off of the satellite signals they uplink other than themselves.

The complaint here is that the level of ViewTech sales are not supported by legitimate users. ViewTech has become another company that makes money off of illegally unscrambling E*'s signals. E* would like them to stop.



> But they would also like to see all FTA STBs removed from the market, regardless of what people use them for, because then the thousands of people who can't get cable or an OTA signal would be forced to turn to the pay sat. companies to watch any TV whatsoever. No FTA on satellite anymore like in Europe. Charlie hasn't said anything to the contrary.


I doubt if E* wants all FTA removed. FTA isn't a threat to E*, the third largest satellite/cable provider in the US. True FTA itself is practically a bug on the windshield of E*'s world.

FTA becomes subscription when providers decide that they can make more money by charging their viewers than by letting them view for free and when a mechanism is in place where the provider can authorize individual receivers. There is nothing stopping any provider from uplinking their signals unscrambled.

"Charlie hasn't said anything to the contrary." Hmm... I have not heard Charlie say anything against pedophilia, so he must support it. Just because someone has not spoken out about an issue does not mean that you can put the words in his mouth.

FTA is OK and there are a lot of providers who allow FTA reception of their signals (including some international channels that are available via subscription on E*). But the vast majority of channel providers that E* carries have not chosen that route. Every path of legally viewing their program is via paid subscription. By fighting piracy E* is doing their part to respect these channel provider's wishes that no one views for free.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

James Long said:


> ... The complaint here is that the level of ViewTech sales are not supported by legitimate users. ViewTech has become another company that makes money off of illegally unscrambling E*'s signals. E* would like them to stop.
> 
> I doubt if E* wants all FTA removed. ...
> 
> ....By fighting piracy E* is doing their part to respect these channel provider's wishes that no one views for free.


Good explanation, I just admire generosity of E*; before I was under impression that it is all about money and corporate greed, now I am convinced they pursue worthy and dignifying goal.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Those of you who rail against "money and corporate greed" - how do you make a living? Perhaps you should give up your salaries, or business or investment profits lest you too be accused of greed.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> E* has received a set of exclusive licenses to transmit their content _to their subscribers_ over their satellites. This is not a public network. While some channels are available unencrypted that does NOT mean that they are providing a public free service nor does the choice of a certain level (or lack thereof) of encryption on their _private_ system forfeit the right to charge for their programming and seek to prevent people from receiving that programming without paying the set charge.


The "entertainment" industry has been arguing that for a long time no. And to the best of my knowledge, they have never won. The signal is there and free for anyone to use as they please, just like the signal on the coax once it enters your house.

As to the public v/s private nature. The networks tried to claim their satellite feeds on the C-band systems were "private" and they lost that case too. That's when they started encrypting the transmission.

One of the reason the industry pushed the DMCA was to write legal loop holes around that, though I don't believe they have been full tested in court yet. Reverse engineering is a valid enterprise, and minor encryption methods do not negate that. Just ask the printer manufacturers who claimed 3rd party ink cartridges violated the DMCA because the data transfer was encrypted.



> These are not "open airwaves". There are specific penalties written into law for unscrambling content without permission. Unless one wishes to pay the penalty one should strictly follow those laws.


Those all all bogus. The only cases I know of regard the manufacture and sales of decryption devices. Remember the early C-band encryption., and the hacked decoders where you entered a set of codes? They finally bet the hackers, not by making it unbreakable, but by changing the codes often enough that it was not usable. If one had to enter code multiple times a day, people just weren't interested.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

SaltiDawg said:


> FTA Michael said:
> 
> 
> > Illegal does not equal wrong ...
> ...


In the 1800s it was illegal to harbor escaped slaves, or not inform law enforcement of their presence. Would you say violation that law was wrong?

It was also illegal for the people of the colonies to revolt against the King of England, an offense punishable by death. So, was their revolution wrong?


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> By some people's "definitions"... it sounds like it would be ok if:
> 
> I see a book in the store that is a best seller at $24.95, and I go to a reading of that book. The person reading the book is speaking and the voice transmits over the air that is free and public to you and I, and there is no encryption... so I can listen to the book reading, and record it... and then I can go home and write it down,


All that is just fine. Just like recording a radio broadcast on a cassette or CD.



> and sell it myself for $9.95


Now you likely to run afoul of the copyright. It the selling/distribution that cause legal problems.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

STDog said:


> The "entertainment" industry has been arguing that for a long time no. And to the best of my knowledge, they have never won.


The DMCA has been quite an effective tool in going after large scale satellite pirates. As the courts become acquainted with the process, the fish will likely get smaller.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Does your back hurt? It seems you do an awful lot of twisting around to justify your questionable ethics.

Equating scrambled satellite signals to slavery - give me a break!


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

Jim5506 said:


> Does your back hurt? It seems you do an awful lot of twisting around to justify your questionable ethics.


My questionable ethics?

based on what pray tell.

If you write a letter on a piece of paper, and drop it on the ground, is it illegal for me to read it?
If you write it in code, does that change anything? (Congress and the DCMA say it does) Why should I not decrypt it and read it?

The satellite signal is you putting the letter up on a big billboard for all to see. The early days of C-band were like plain text. Since then the information has been encrypted, but the info is still On the bill board. No twisting around or anything.

I also have a problem with E* or anyone else telling me what I can and cannot do with the hardware (metal and silicon) I bought. If I want to take it apart and use the RF modulator in anther project, why not? I bought the thing. Or I pull the HDD out of a 501 and use it in another computer. Again, I bought it. If I want to write my own software for the hardware, then where does E* get the nerve to tell me I cannot? Next they will tell me I cannot used my old signal sat. dish (Dies 300) and LNBF with an different receiver.

And, when I bought my receivers, all 4 of them came with smart cards,. So to me I bough that item too. Could you imaging GM/Ford telling you that the radio in you car belongs to them and you cannot charge it, or modify it?

That said, I am a paying customer, and have been with DishNetwork since 1998. Before that I had used Echostar C-band equipment, and it was one of the reasons I chose DishNetwork. I've never used hacked decoders, weather it was for the VC-II or my DishNetwork systems.



> Equating scrambled satellite signals to slavery - give me a break!


I did no such thing. You should read the context before such a slam.

Illegal <> immoral just as legal <> moral

I simply picked easy to understand examples where the moral thing was illegal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We have federal laws that protect content. In this case, the law gives ownership to the providers. All they have to do is have a way for people to subscribe and tell people to do so. They don't have to provide encryption - that is their choice - all they have to do is put up their no trespassing signs.

Keep out means keep out ...


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> We have federal laws that protect content. In this case, the law gives ownership to the providers.


Now were back to legal v/s moral.

Considering how copyright law has been distorted today, I'm not sure the current laws are constitutional. Consider that copyright was meant to protect a creator for a short time, not publishers,media conglomerates, or holding corporations for 75 years or more.

I don't consider code breaking wrong. In fact, we need them now more than ever for security. Imagine not being able to intercept terrorist transmissions because they are encryted. Any one else ever heard of Enigma in relation to WWII? I enjoy try to decipher text codes, but I suck at it.

Today, messages aren't written on paper much. Instead you have secure phones, encrypted email, and video conferencing.



> all they have to do is put up their no trespassing signs.
> Keep out means keep out ...


Try prosecuting some one fro trespassing if you don't have a fence.

Something about due diligence.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What about the quality of a fence? Does a simple wire between posts a fence make? Now we're back to the posts earlier in this thread that seem to infer that it's OK to view E*'s services without subscription because their encryption isn't good enough.

Personally, it doesn't matter if you think the law is constitutional. It is the law. Want it changed? Get congress involved. Anarchy isn't the answer.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

It will be interesting to see how the courts view this if it gets that far. Seems to me Viewtech may reach a settlement in order to save themselves some money. As far as this forum goes, we pay our fees for what we use. Sometimes we gripe about the fees. Hackers are encouraged to find another forum. 

Life is too short to be doing dumb stuff like Tim Donaghy or a Michael Vick. 

..Doyle


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Must be Egyptian - he's in denial.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The way some folks are reaching with this "but it is broadcast on public airwaves" defense for stealing signals... it makes me think... would they also be ok if I monitored their internet connection (the internet after all was paid for by tax dollars and thus public, especially when accessed wirelessly over those same public airwaves)... and recorded their electronic communications when they make online purchases... and then made purchases myself with their credit card info. After all, they are broadcasting that info for all to see, right?

Sarcasm off now...

If you have to work that hard to defend it, you must know it is wrong.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> would they also be ok if I monitored their internet connection ... and recorded their electronic communications when they make online purchases...


Actually, that is perfectly legal.



> and then made purchases myself with their credit card info. After all, they are broadcasting that info for all to see, right?


You are not an authorized user for that card, and as such should not be able to use it.
If you pretend to be an authorized user, that's fraud.

The fact that places do not properly verify the user of a car (when was the last time your Id was checked, and signature verified when you used a card?) means you have to take extra care to prevent it's unauthorized use. Or, just don't use a card at all. You are taking some responsibility for security when you decide to get the card.



> If you have to work that hard to defend it, you must know it is wrong.


Who's working hard?

Other than taking time to compose my thoughts into a readable (hopefully) statement, no hard work involved.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Personally, it doesn't matter if you think the law is constitutional. It is the law. Want it changed? Get congress involved. Anarchy isn't the answer.


You know most politicians are corrupt, and belong to the highest bidder.
Most of the stuff the federal government does today is unconstitutional, and it'll take another revolution to straighten it out again. We have been unable to keep the republic Frankiln spoke of.

Jefferson warned:


> God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
> The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
> wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
> they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
> ...


We are probably already past the point where anyother means will do. Too bad for use the government has so disarmed the populace that we haven't much chance against them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

STDog said:


> You are not an authorized user for that card, and as such should not be able to use it.
> If you pretend to be an authorized user, that's fraud.


And now you are where we are talking in this thread... ViewTech has been accused of violating laws and profiting from those violations. We aren't talking about a home user who hacked his own box somehow, which is much harder to find and prosecute.. we are talking about a company that potentially designed and sold boxes intended for stealing.

Innocent until proven guilty as always... but the point here is Dish thinks ViewTech is guilty, thus the lawsuit.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> And now you are where we are talking in this thread... ViewTech has been accused of violating laws and profiting from those violations.


Have they?
I haven't seen the actual complaint. Is it available?



> we are talking about a company that potentially designed and sold boxes intended for stealing.


They designed a box that receives satellite signals. The software in the box is easily modified, but so is the software for most computers (i.e. run whatever OS you like). Has ViewTech been accused of supplying the software for decrypting DishNetwork signals or just the hardware platform that others choose to use?

If it's just the platform of choice, then I don't see any wrong doing by VT. No more than Dell/IBM/Gateway would be guilty if their boxes were the preferred choice of virus writers, or crackers breaking into bank computers. Or that RedHat Linux is guilty because their OS distribution is the preferred choice of people who watch DVDs "illegally". Or the developers of MPlayer if there program is the preferred software to be hacked to view DVDs. 
(yes it's a violation of the DMCA to watch an encrypted DVD, ie most Hollywood movies, with Linux since there is no licensed decoder in Linux. The tools that allow it are illegal.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

STDog said:


> Have they?
> I haven't seen the actual complaint. Is it available?


I thought there was a link earlier in this thread to some of the legal stuffs... basically, though, Dish believes that ViewTech has supplied hardware with modified software designed to steal their signals.

As you say, it is one thing to try and sue someone for other people's inappropriate use... but in this case, Dish is trying to assert/prove that ViewTech sold the hardware with the intended use as stealing and supplied the hacked software to do so.

May or may not be true, we'll have to see more info as this progresses... but that is the assertion as I understand it.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I think that View Tech maybe selling their boxes as not able to decrypt - but they make it very easy to find / modify the receiver to enable that function.

For the record - if you aren't PAYING to receive Dish Network programming (after all, most of it IS encrypted, even if it isn't very strong) , you're stealing it.And breaking the DMCA (but that is another matter - I personally think the DMCA is far too draconian).


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

I read somewhere that VT is/was paying coders to write the pirate BINs. If that's true it's worse than just loading the bins in the rcvrs. before shipping them out.

I see Echostar getting the assets of Viewtech and selling the receivers themselves since they have no FTA product in their lineup. Make up some money on the back end.

In other news, they just broke the code for Charlie's cousin Beverly (Yay). Now those who watch that service in the US get to see the Canadian Idol finale which DN won't carry. I don't know why. Go Jaydee, Vote for the Worst, heh.

-A- Don't steal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

STDog said:


> Most of the stuff the federal government does today is unconstitutional,


Irrelevant to this forum.

We need to get on the topic of ViewTech ... Not defending taking signals from others without permission and even against their wishes. Not some odd rant against the government and how the laws may or may not be constitutional.

This is a DBS discussion forum. Let's get back to it.

But first, one more note:


> We are probably already past the point where anyother means will do. Too bad for use the government has so disarmed the populace that we haven't much chance against them.


Apparently you have not heard that the US is the most armed nation in the world with 90 guns for every 100 people. 

:backtotop
(Thanks to scooper and art7220 for doing just that.)


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

HDMe said:


> I thought there was a link earlier in this thread to some of the legal stuffs... basically, though, Dish believes that ViewTech has supplied hardware with modified software designed to steal their signals.


A link to a subscription only article, but nothing with the actual complaint that I saw.

The Denver paper article has no real information. Mostly a notice that a complaint was filled, but no details.



> As you say, it is one thing to try and sue someone for other people's inappropriate use... but in this case, Dish is trying to assert/prove that ViewTech sold the hardware with the intended use as stealing and supplied the hacked software to do so.


I didn't see that in the "highlights" reposted by others, Like Richard King in reply #4

One mention was made that Mr. Kwak participated in "chats on Web sites devoted to pirating satellite television feeds" put not what his contributions were. Perhaps he was giving technical advice about the programming of the hardware? Tech support for users of the system he helped design/produce. It's also not clear whether he is even still working at ViewTech, or in what capacity.

All the more reason I'd like to see the complaint. So far, it sounds like DishNetwork is just going to drown ViewTech with legal fees hoping to put them out of business. If the Case were strong, we would have heard more. Then again, I would have expected to here more from ViewTech if the case was very weak.

The silence form both sides surprises me.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The case will be fought in court. There is no reason to disclose all the lurid details to the public (other than as required through the court filing systems and public access to those systems). We are not the judge nor jury.

The accusation is pretty clear ... E* believes that ViewTech is profiting from the sale of receivers used for the unauthorized reception of E*'s signals. Part of the complaint is that they believe that the sales levels of ViewTech's receivers reflects more than legitimate demand for such receivers. The end goal is not to put ViewTech out of business but to put an end to their selling an "easily hacked" receiver. Even if all it means is making it harder to hack.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

The lawsuit claims Copyright infringement. 
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-casdce/case_no-3:2007cv01273/case_id-251605/
If in building the Viewsat receiver, Viewtech has made use of proprietary or copyrighted software, hardware or firmware, then they may be liable for damages.

Seems to me that Dish would have purchased the offending receiver and then gone through it to see if it violates and copyrights or patents etc. If so then that is where they go with their lawsuit. They don't have to fully tip their hand until they get to court. At some point the customer lists come out and then the letters go out. Seems HBO did that a number of years ago where they went all over the country taking pictures of microwave antennas and sent letters to those people. I got one of the letters as they had mistaken a 144 MHz ham antenna on my roof for a 2.4Ghz microwave antenna. When that was pointed out to them they sent a letter of apology. No harm no foul in my case. Viewtech may have the ability to fight back but most consumers will quickly fold when pressed.

No one wants to spend time in a cell with Bubba!

..Doyle


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> ]The end goal is not to put ViewTech out of business but to put an end to their selling an "easily hacked" receiver. Even if all it means is making it harder to hack.


What is wrong with a satellite receiver that the owner/customer can program as they see fit?
Why does it matter the user runs ViewTech's factory code, code they wrote themselves or code someone else wrote?

The hardware in question has a tuner, that controls the LNBF's polarity, and selects a single frequency out of the full spectrum. Tuners can also be purchased separately and placed in a generic PC. That analog RF signal it then converted to a digital signal.

The hardware also contains and Digital to Analog Converter (DAC) that, in the case is designed to generate the NTSC compatible (or PAL) signal that a TV can display. Again, cards for this are common in PCs as well.

The ViewTech box combines those 2 cards in a box with a computer, much like the one on your desk. Everything that is done with the ViewTech box can be done on a PC. If DishNetwork were to try stopping the tuner card, the DAC card, or the the PC makers to stop, would you agree with them?

If ViewTech markets all 3 in a single box why would it be treated any different? Why should View Tech not allow their customers to change the software as they see fit? Sure, ViewTech could make the system closed, like D* and E* do, but if they want to allow hobbyists to modify the software, say, change the OSD displays or the channel guide order, why not?

If DishNetwork is able to stop ViewTech, what's to stop the commercial PVR/DVR manufactures (like TiVo) for stopping the home brew systems?

Or Microsoft from demanding that PCs not run other OSes (like Linux, BSD, or even OS/2)?


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

DoyleS said:


> The lawsuit claims Copyright infringement.
> http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-casdce/case_no-3:2007cv01273/case_id-251605/
> If in building the Viewsat receiver, Viewtech has made use of proprietary or copyrighted software, hardware or firmware, then they may be liable for damages.


I need to read that. Thanks for the link.



> I got one of the letters as they had mistaken a 144 MHz ham antenna on my roof for a 2.4Ghz microwave antenna.


Were 2.4Ghz antennas illegal?

If not, how is it any of their business what antenna you have on you roof?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

From one of the links from the above link....


> Viewsat in trouble // 2007-07-17
> There has been lawsuit filed against Viewtech (the parent company), Jung Kwak (the owner)and Does 1 through 10 by Echostar and the Nagrastar (parent company of Bell and Dishnetwork).
> Rumor on the street is that this goes back to August 2006 (Maprom ECM) when *Viewsat came up with the fix before any one else, they used Noth American coder to do their fix, sold the fix to others *and were on top of the world, by using North American coder they left themselves open.
> More recently HashHU bust did not help them either, all this caught up to them and they are in deep trouble now.
> There are other individuals who are in big trouble also namely thedssguy and few others who suppose ably left high and dry to fend for themselves.


It appears that the owner of ViewTech has a history of such offenses: 


> Viewsat problems keep mounting // 2007-07-25
> Despite all the talks from Viewsat (Viewtech) lawyers, it looks like their problems getting bigger and bigger.
> 
> Reports are coming in that majority of the Viewsat official dealers are getting calls from Nagrastar (Echostar security division), they want to know how long these guys have been their dealers, how many units have been sold by them and what kind of support they have been receiving from Viewsat including the files.
> ...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"Nagrastar (parent company of Bell and Dishnetwork)" - why that ppl publishing wrong info ? It's Nagravision (Kudelski) and Echostar daughter company. Too much rumors doesn't adding credibility to the publication.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

STDog said:


> What is wrong with a satellite receiver that the owner/customer can program as they see fit?


"As they see fit" has it's limits. If the customer sees it fit to illegally descramble services with that receiver there is _plenty_ wrong with it.



> Why does it matter the user runs ViewTech's factory code, code they wrote themselves or code someone else wrote?


If the code is designed to illegally receive signals it matters.

And quite frankly, it seems that all you are here to do is defend people who illegally descramble and view signals and a company that enables them. That is unfortunate.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

If you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

James,

You surely have the patience of Job!

STDog,

Makes me kind of wonder how one would find a jury favorable to signal pirating. Let's see now.....Do I ask a prospective juror if they steal signals? Do you subscribe to Cable or Sat TV? Seems to me most people who are subscribing would look unfavorably on the practice. In the final analysis, when the jury goes into that room, they are the law. 

..Doyle


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

James Long said:


> ... Part of the complaint is that they believe that the sales levels of ViewTech's receivers reflects more than legitimate demand for such receivers.


Oh, so they came up with some numbers huh?

If VT sold 2,000 receivers it's OK, but if they sell 20,000 they think they're being used to pirate their service? I guess they don't want to believe a lot of people want to watch FTA channels. They don't know for sure how many VTs are being used with pirate software.

I still contend DN would rather not have FTA channels so people would have to buy their service. They did something so that we wouldn't have as many FTA channels like in Europe. Or is that the programmers fault?



> The end goal is not to put ViewTech out of business but to put an end to their selling an "easily hacked" receiver. Even if all it means is making it harder to hack.


Or to cripple their receivers so much DNs receivers look good by comparison? Why make your product better when you can force your competitor to make theirs worse? Especially if you can tie it in with illegal use.

-A- What other FTA makers will they go after next?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

That's always been my objection, that they based part of their public argument on the false notion that there's no good reason to buy a FTA receiver if you're not a pirate. Given that flawed logic, they could sue any FTA equipment company.

OTOH, what I read (no idea whether it's true) is that VT sold receivers, then actively worked to create (?) and spread the stuff to convert those receivers to pirate boxes. I've got no sympathy for them if that's true.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Art7220 said:


> Or to cripple their receivers so much DNs receivers look good by comparison? Why make your product better when you can force your competitor to make theirs worse? Especially if you can tie it in with illegal use.


E* and ViewTech are not competitors except one category:
People using ViewTech receivers to illegally receive and descramble E* receivers.

Per ViewTech's website they are anti-hacker and do not want others writing software for their equipment. E* simply wants ViewTech to put their money where their mouth is and do a little more to prevent their receivers from being used for that purpose. Don't just say you're anti-hacker with a wink. Be anti-hacker at the core.



Art7220 said:


> I still contend DN would rather not have FTA channels so people would have to buy their service. They did something so that we wouldn't have as many FTA channels like in Europe. Or is that the programmers fault?


This thread is starting to get circular again ... I'm sure I've answered the question before. Programmers want _money_.

Some providers want their money through viewers unless their program providers complain they can _choose_ to place FTA signals on satellite for any interested party to see. The GloryStar channels fit this choice. The channels make their money off of viewer donations ... not via direct subscription.

Others have chosen a subscription method for getting their money. Perhaps driven by the program providers that license the programs they air but the _choice_ has been made to ask every viewer to pay in advance for the channel before viewing.

And it is the provider's choice whether they go FTA or subscription - protected by federal law in the US. It all comes down to money. Providers want it and they can choose to get it via subscription. If our US market seems to be leaning more toward subscription than free it is because the providers have made that choice.

The biggest pressure on them (other than their pocketbook) is the companies that provide the programs they air. Some channels produce all or most of their content or carry programs that the program providers want to be seen by the widest audience. Others license programs from the program providers. Those program providers want to be paid for the people viewing their content so the licenses are often limited (number of air times, area where the program may be distributed and often payment per subscriber - even if just a bulk estimate). FTA does not allow the tight controls of a subscription system and makes it hard to enforce coverage areas and viewer count. A channel that licenses programs is more likely to be scrambled to help protect the interests of the program providers (as well as their own interests). (And before someone confuses OTA with FTA a reminder that local broadcast stations have defined areas and statistical viewer counts that satisfy those that license their content for viewing.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FTA Michael said:


> That's always been my objection, that they based part of their public argument on the false notion that there's no good reason to buy a FTA receiver if you're not a pirate. Given that flawed logic, they could sue any FTA equipment company.


I don't believe that E* is saying there is _no_ reason to have a FTA receiver ... only that there seems to be too many receivers sold for the legitimate demand. Apparently their market research shows a demand for "X" receivers for FTA use and ViewTech's figures represent multiples of "X" in sales. Where are the additional receivers going?

Despite the general viewpoint, E* isn't stupid. They wouldn't go after ViewTech unless they believed they had a strong case that they can win.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> "As they see fit" has it's limits. If the customer sees it fit to illegally descramble services with that receiver there is _plenty_ wrong with it.
> 
> If the code is designed to illegally receive signals it matters.


So you think the hardware manufacturer is responsible for what the user does with the hardware?

If I want to write my own UI for a box, I should not be allowed?

I just don think ViewTech or any other manufacturer should be responsible for what the users do with the hardware. It's like holding a gun manufacturer responsible for what the user does with the gun.

Are the lock pick makers responsible for someone breaking in and stealing stuff?
What if you use the tools when you loose the key to you own locks?

I'd love to be able to use a different hard drive in my 501. I cannot though, because DishNetwork won't allow it. Why? What harm would it cause?



DoyleS said:


> M.Do I ask a prospective juror if they steal signals? Do you subscribe to Cable or Sat TV? Seems to me most people who are subscribing would look unfavorably on the practice.


Well, As I mentioned I've been a DishNetwork subscriber since 1998. I subscribed to C-band services until I moved someplace I couldn't put a C-band dish(no LOS for most of the arc, and a tall pole was too expensive). I also used C-band before the VCII. I miss the back-feed from sporting events and new remotes.

But, I have no problem with people trying to break codes. That what encryption is all about, newer algorithms get written when the old ones are broken. Other wise we'd still be using 8bit keys and probably not have public key algorithms.

I'm no cryptographer, but I encourage them to continue their work, on both sides. Creating new codes/methods and breaking the old ones. Imagine not being able to intercept an enemy's communications because all the code breakers are in jail and 10 year behind the state-of-the-art.

Guess I'm too worried about the loss of our rights. Soon you won't have fair use thanks to the DMCA making it illegal to crack the encryption. I'm quite dismayed that to watch most DVDs with my Linux computer I have to break the law. Next I'll have to use a certain OS to listen to CDs. before long I'll have to buy GM (or Ford/Toyota/Honda) licensed radios to use in my car.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

STDog said:


> So you think the hardware manufacturer is responsible for what the user does with the hardware?
> 
> If I want to write my own UI for a box, I should not be allowed?


If the manufacture is aware of an overwhelming illegal use of their product they should do everything in their power to prevent such illegal use. If you are not fighting it, you are condoning it.



> It's like holding a gun manufacturer responsible for what the user does with the gun.


Perhaps they should be held responsible. There are already a lot of federal controls on guns ... limits on who can buy and how quickly, limits on how well a gun can operate. You've already complained about those controls in this thread. Why not control the illegal use of other products?



> But, I have no problem with people trying to break codes.


That much is obvious. If you're going to encourage people to break the law and take E* programming without permission then you will have to post about it elsewhere. We don't encourage illegal activities here.



> Guess I'm too worried about the loss of our rights.


You do NOT have the right to steal. Why does your right to "crack codes" become more important than the provider's right to protect their business? The provider's rights are written into law. You cannot watch subscription programming without permission _regardless_ of the level of encryption. It isn't a game. It's the law.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> So you think the hardware manufacturer is responsible for what the user does with the hardware?


It *appears *that the "manufacturer" is in fact responsible for what the end user is doing with the hardware since it appears that they, the "manufacturer", were the first to develop and distribute the programming that the end user is plugging into the receiver to steal programming.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Richard King said:


> It *appears *that the "manufacturer" is in fact responsible for what the end user is doing with the hardware since it appears that they, the "manufacturer", were the first to develop and distribute the programming that the end user is plugging into the receiver to steal programming.


The statement shoud be proven in a court by Dish; for now it is disputing matter.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> The statement shoud be proven in a court by Dish; for now it is disputing matter.


It appears that several here would rather not wait. The mere fact that you can run alternate code on the box means they are condoning copyright violation.

I'm glad they haven made it illegal for me to run linux on my computers. All it would take in their eyes is to encrypt part of the boot procedure, such that it'll only boot a certain OS. To have it load different code would require breaking that encryption and thus violate the DMCA. (hint, that's the Xbox trick, and the hacks for it violate the DMCA).

I've never been able to buy a 721 from Dish. Given what I've heard about the software, it could use a hack so that the bug got fixed. A fix for P3.69 on my 501 would be nice too. There are programmers out there that could fix it, and would do it if only it wasn't illegal. They could probably rewrite the code to allow replacement hard drives too. DishNetwork sure isn't going to do it.

But, anyone doing so would be violating the DMCA, and thus a thief in the eyes of most here it seams.

To me that box is just another computer with a tuner card and TV out. My PC has that to. Why shouldn't I be able to change the software on it like I can my PC? Because someone else might do something illegal?

Mr. King, I've not seen anything that claims that ViewTech developed or distributed the code to decrypt DishNetworks signals. I'm not subscribed to PACER so I cannot access the court documents.

Mr. Long,
So all what should tool makers do about their tools being used for illegal purposes? Hammers break windows. A good sled will open most doors. Should we control the sale of those items too?

I though the law looked for substantial legal uses in such cases. Since FTA receivers have valid non infringing uses, then they should be fine. Go after the people selling the hacks. But not the equipment used by them. If someone wants to work on breaking the code, I'm all for that. And as long as they are not selling it it's fine. Just lime me making a copy of a CD, or DVD. (of course the DMCA make the latter illegal). I've harmed no on, and done nothing wrong unless I distribute it.

Just having the ability to do something illegal, doesn't mean it was done. Am I a murderer because I own a gun? Am I software pirate because I mad a copy of a game CD?

Here's a nice hypothetical. What if the ViewTech receivers have function/features I like better that the offerings from DishNetwork. I continue my subscription, but replace my 4900 with a hacked ViewTech unit. Am I stealing anything? I'm still paying DishNetwork the monthly fees for 3 receivers like before, and I only have three receivers hooked up.

To me that the same as putting songs for 6 CDs on to a single CD/tape. Or putting 2 movies with one audio track each on a DVD, without all the "Bonus" stuff. I've not stolen anything.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

STDog, before I spend the time stepping through another of your posts answer me ONE question:
*Is the reception of subscription satellite service without the permission of the provider illegal?*

If your answer is anything other than yes we have nothing more to discuss.

As far as your rants go, let's keep it on topic for ViewTech and not get into the wild attacks on DMCA and the government and other off topic discussions. This is a very specific discussion about how ViewTech is alleged to be helping people view E* satellite service without subscription.

And finally, note that your E* subscription is a license to use E* receivers to view E* content. E* is not granting you any permission to use a homebrew receiver of any kind. So yes, your 'hypothetical' reception is illegal.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

STDog, there is will be much stronger position for the plaintiff, if he could proof that company manufacture device what primary assist unauthorized decryption. Check Title 47 USC §605(e)(4) and §2512.
As to ppl who use the device, then the plaintiff must show an evidence of unauthorized decryption for incriminate violation of 47 USC §605(e)(1). Anyway this is a felony if an evidence will presenting to a court.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> Mr. King, I've not seen anything that claims that ViewTech developed or distributed the code to decrypt DishNetworks signals. I'm not subscribed to PACER so I cannot access the court documents.


Read post #179 above (all of it). They have a HISTORY of doing this kind of thing. Ths is from one of the hack sites (which will remain unnamed here rather than promote them).


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> STDog, before I spend the time stepping through another of your posts answer me ONE question:
> *Is the reception of subscription satellite service without the permission of the provider illegal?*
> 
> If your answer is anything other than yes we have nothing more to discuss.


Under current law it seams to be, but only because of the DMCA.

Prior to that (ie, the C-band and VC-II days) it wasn't. I think it was HBO that lost that case, and led to the encryption of the signals. I don't know the case law of the hacked VC-II modules because I was happy to pay for the subscription, especially on C-Band when 95+% of the services were available ala-carte. I didn't have to pay for stuff I didn't want.



> As far as your rants go, let's keep it on topic for ViewTech and not get into the wild attacks on DMCA and the government and other off topic discussions.


It's very germane to the issue. It is the DMCA that make it illegal. No-DMCA, then decrypting the signal is legal.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

Richard King said:


> Read post #179 above (all of it). They have a HISTORY of doing this kind of thing.


I see one mention of rumor (the first bit). "word on the street"

In the other, the "owner" apparently has been on the cable companies bad side in the past. No details given as to the level of involvement, or when it occurred, or even the amount of the fine.
Was he "high level" or just a middle man?

While you or I find it odd to have a long lingering fine, it seams quite common in many circles.
(like the Hsu case in the news recently).



> Ths is from one of the hack sites (which will remain unnamed here rather than promote them).


Consider the source then. Those sites are always forthright with information and would never deceive someone.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> If your answer is anything other than yes we have nothing more to discuss.


Your answer was something other than yes.

Current law is clear ... you do not have a right to take signals that are not yours.
You are putting the law on trial, and not ViewTech. This thread is about ViewTech.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

STDog said:


> It's very germane to the issue. It is the DMCA that make it illegal. No-DMCA, then decrypting the signal is legal.


You are making a circular logic point, unrelated to ViewTech and Dish's lawsuit.

If it were not illegal to kill people, then you could kill whomever you wanted... same goes for robbing people, burning down someone else's home, etc. etc.

Pretty much everything that is against the law is against the law because of a law! Change the law, and it would no longer be illegal.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

I am glad that still remain people of good sense among of FTA guys.
I fully agree with everything what have been told by STDog.
Below is an interesting link which, I believe, is related to the discussed subject,.

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_09.php#005434


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

HDMe said:


> You are making a circular logic point, unrelated to ViewTech and Dish's lawsuit.
> 
> If it were not illegal to kill people, then you could kill whomever you wanted... same goes for robbing people, burning down someone else's home, etc. etc.
> 
> Pretty much everything that is against the law is against the law because of a law! Change the law, and it would no longer be illegal.


Well said, "give the governor a hurrumph!"


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I'm always happy to see the proper balance struck between true researchers and equipment makers, but the EFF link is a bit off topic. Unless you mean it to argue against ViewTech's alleged activity.

"... EFF argued that the (law's) provision should apply only to entities that _facilitate_ illegal interception by other people ..." (emphasis mine)


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals


I wonder how soon before this is overturned.


----------



## a35r (Jul 24, 2007)

FTA Michael said:


> I'm always happy to see the proper balance struck between true researchers and equipment makers, but the EFF link is a bit off topic. Unless you mean it to argue against ViewTech's alleged activity.
> 
> "... EFF argued that the (law's) provision should apply only to entities that _facilitate_ illegal interception by other people ..." (emphasis mine)


Does it mean that you can cont or should not share your security research results?

Let say if you write something like this: "My test setup includes Coolsat, Viewsat, Dreambox etc. receiver, the test algorithm id doing so an so .... My test results sowed so ans so .... . Person that want to confirm my results can find an implementation of the proposed algorithm in the form of the (source) binary code here. I would be glad to receive feed back from you in order to verify my test results."

Would it be facilitation of illegal interception by other people?


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

a35r said:


> Would it be facilitation of illegal interception by other people?


Apparently.

Like the 2600 guys found out with DeCSS or even linking to a site with the code.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

a35r said:


> FTA Michael said:
> 
> 
> > I'm always happy to see the proper balance struck between true researchers and equipment makers, but the EFF link is a bit off topic. Unless you mean it to argue against ViewTech's alleged activity.
> ...


One should not be attempting to unscramble signals without the provider's permission. I'm sure the EFF would disagree, but the law isn't there to ruin a hobby ... it is there to protect content. If people want to play, find a provider that will give them _permission_ to play - (and by that, make the playing legal).

I don't see how two people could discuss how signals are illegally intercepted without one (or both) facilitating the other.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> I don't see how two people could discuss *how signals are illegally intercepted* without one (or both) facilitating the other.


That is not the topic. The topic would be cryptography, and the algorithms used by <blank> for DVB broadcasts. Should the algorithm's strengths and weaknesses be fair topics of discussion?

The strengths and weaknesses of different lock cylinder designs can be discussed, but not and electronic method?

Have you ever read about the codes used by foreign governments and how they were broken? Many of those cyphers are available online or in print. Such they others my understand them and improve upon them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

STDog said:


> That is not the topic. The topic would be cryptography, and the algorithms used by <blank> for DVB broadcasts. Should the algorithm's strengths and weaknesses be fair topics of discussion?
> 
> The strengths and weaknesses of different lock cylinder designs can be discussed, but not and electronic method?


Not really, no. None of that is the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread was supposed to be Echostar suing ViewTech for alleged illegal activity in permitting/encouraging ViewTech customers to steal Echostar signals.

Encryption methods, theories, breaking, etc. were never the intended topic of this thread.

If someone started a thread on how OJ was being tried for murder (back in the day)... it would be similarly off-topic to discuss methods of killing people and/or training to kill being good for the military, etc. etc.

Appropriate topics would be if you believe ViewTech is not guilty or has not broken any laws. Inappropriate topics are whether you believe the law is valid.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

STDog said:


> That is not the topic. The topic would be cryptography, and the algorithms used by <blank> for DVB broadcasts. Should the algorithm's strengths and weaknesses be fair topics of discussion?
> 
> The strengths and weaknesses of different lock cylinder designs can be discussed, but not and electronic method?
> 
> Have you ever read about the codes used by foreign governments and how they were broken? Many of those cyphers are available online or in print. Such they others my understand them and improve upon them.


The only way of testing the encryption is to commit an illegal act ... the attempt to illegally receive signals. Any theoretical discussion of the strengths and weaknesses would be fruit of that illegal act and could facilitate others in committing the same illegal act.

And as this is DBSTalk not EFFTalk I hope that you will allow us to end this discussion here. You have been asked several times to stay on topic and keep pulling the topic away. Please do not do so again.

This thread remains open ONLY for the discussion of the lawsuit. If you feel the need to discuss cryptology and the EFF please find an appropriate cryptology forum. Thanks!


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> And as this is DBSTalk not EFFTalk I hope that you will allow us to end this discussion here. You have been asked several times to stay on topic and keep pulling the topic away. Please do not do so again.


As I understand the case, one of Viewtech's "crimes" was being involved in cryptography research.

There hardware is valuable to the study of DVB encryption because it contains a tuner to receive the RF signal, convert it to a the digital domain, an firmware updater, and the hardware to decode and MPEG2 data stream into audio and video.

So, how do you suppose someone studies the encryption used with the DVB format to improve it, if they don't have access to the hardware and cannot discuss they findings with other cryptographers?

I see significant, non-infringing uses for the ViewTech hardware. In addition to unencrypted signals and research, it could also be used with different encryption as a set top box for small providers that do not have the ability to manufacture the set-top-box. Such providers would need only rent space on a satellite and provide an up-link facility with the data to transmit.

As such, the ViewTech hardware should stay on the market.

I've seen no evidence that the company was distributing illegal hardware, just another device that can be put to illegal uses as well as legal ones. The closest anyone has come to that is a claim that Mr. Kwak participated in one or more chat rooms that are tied to piracy. What level of participation he had is not stated. Still, at best he is guilty of something, but I don't see where the company has done anything wrong.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Viewtech is not marketing their device as a piece of test equipment.

They are marketing a consumer "FTA" receiver and in the shadows making a lot of money off of people illegally viewing encrypted signals. People who are not reporting their findings back to E* and NagraVision hoping to make the encryption stronger and harder to break but people who would be happier if the encryption was not secure at all.

These hackers, enabled by ViewTech, are not the friendly "break in and leave a note letting the sysadmin know the weaknesses" type but the "let's see what we can get without paying for it or following the law" type.

These are the kind of people that ViewTech is profiting from ... above and beyond legitimate FTA viewers.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Viewtech is not marketing their device as a piece of test equipment.
> 
> They are marketing a consumer "FTA" receiver


They aren'tr marlketing it as anything other than a FTA receiver. No different that any of the C-band receivers that have a slot for the VC-II module that are sold with out that module.



> and in the shadows making a lot of money off of people illegally viewing encrypted signals.


So all the IRD manufacturers then, since they made money of the people who used hacked VC-II modules in their receivers. Does anyone know the ratio of subscribers v/s hacked box users v/s in-the-clear users from those days? I'll bet the percentage of pirate boxes to subscribers was higher then.

Of course the switch to the VC-RS modules ended most of the pirate market as the keys changed too often for the hacked boxes to be useful. I knew people with hacked boxes then, and they all gave up the hacked systems as they were too much work. It generally cot them more than if they has just subscribed give the cost of the hacked module, and access to the codes, and the the cost of a new VC-RS module later.



> These are the kind of people that ViewTech is profiting from ... above and beyond legitimate FTA viewers.


Unsubstantiated claim. ViewTech sells lots of receivers. Echostar says that's more than we see a market for. So, it must be illegal uses? I think it rather conceited of Echostar to assume that the numbers could only be for people "stealing" the DishNetwork feed.

I'd rather Charlie concentrate on improving the DishNetwork hardware, customer service, and pricing such that the market for piracy made small. If DishNetwork offers the best package overall, then the market for pirate boxes will be nill.

The pirate DVD and CD markets are small, because the quality and price make the pirate stuff undesired by most, unlike the market for boot leg cassette tapes was (the quality was about the same and the bootlegs were much cheaper).

Instead they are spending millions on a lawsuit, while long time customers suffer with buggy software (like the 501/508/510 owners) and picture quality issues.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And once again you leave the topic ... this time to slam E*. 
The rest is just the same reposted stuff from above.

:backtotop - if there is anything new to say.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

"Instead they are spending millions on a lawsuit, while long time customers suffer with buggy software (like the 501/508/510 owners) and picture quality issues."

I don't see that the two issues are related. Even if there was no lawsuit, it doesn't mean Dish would take that money to work on 501/508/510 software issues. As far as picture quality, I have been pretty satisfied with the HD picture quality. That said, 508 and picture quality issues are really a red herring to this discussion and again off topic. Actually I am a little surprised that you have stayed a Dish subscriber for almost 10 years if you have been that unhappy with the way they operate. 

I would venture that Dish pretty well understands the market for various Sat technologies. Basing a decision to go after Viewtech based on what they perceive as high receiver sales into a limited market is no different than other companies using market research to base decisions on. 


..Doyle


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Research - That's A Good One!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

DoyleS said:


> "Instead they are spending millions on a lawsuit, while long time customers suffer with buggy software (like the 501/508/510 owners) and picture quality issues."
> 
> I don't see that the two issues are related. Even if there was no lawsuit, it doesn't mean Dish would take that money to work on 501/508/510 software issues.


I didn't say they would. Just that the resources would be better focused on current customer issues, and used some examples.

Fighting DirectTV for NFL Sunday Ticket would be nice too. I still don't understand the legality of that one given the current regulatory structure. Sometime and "exclusive" is OK, an other times it's not. I don't understand the NFL making the deal either.



> As far as picture quality, I have been pretty satisfied with the HD picture quality.


I don't do HD, but most of the SD has been fine. Some over compression at various times, by generally OK to me. But I do read a lot of complaints about PQ on this forum.

The 501 issue affects me personally, It seams strange that good software was replaced with poor software. It does seam to be an effort to get us to switch for the revenue stream.

<OT>


> Actually I am a little surprised that you have stayed a Dish subscriber for almost 10 years if you have been that unhappy with the way they operate.


And go where? Dish is the least bad of the available options. And the first 5+ years were great. It's only been since the distant nets fiasco that I've seriously questioned Charlie's decisions.

I would have stayed with my BUD if I could have. I'd go back if I could too. Unfortunately I do not have that option, and from the looks of it, a lot of programming is leaving the big dish market.
No way I'll ever connect the local cable to my house, and DirectTV doesn't oiffer anything to make me switch.

</OT>



> I would venture that Dish pretty well understands the market for various Sat technologies.


I'm not so sure anymore. I'm starting to think Charlie's vision is blinded by past success and an unwillingness to look in new directions. Common issue with companies. The come in with a disruptive technology, then become the old guard, not understanding the next disruptive technology.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> And once again you leave the topic ... this time to slam E*.


I did not slam Echostar. I questioned their priorities. 
This is a small problem that can be dealt with in another manner and is wasting resources that could be put to better use.

Is there anything anyone can say other than "ViewTech is just a front for the prirates" or "ViewTech settles for $$$" that you would find relevant to this suit? It seams not.

I don't spend much time on this forum, mostly because I don't have problems, and a such don't have much to offer in help either. The underlying law in this case concerns me. So, I entered this discussion.

How Echostar focuses it's resources, and whether this suit is a wise endeavor seams relevant too. I only brought it up to get off the law issue as YOU requested.

It's not like well see any movement in the courts on this case for a while. Has discovery even started in this case? Have there been rulings on any pre-trial motions? And motions even filled yet?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

STDog said:


> Is there anything anyone can say other than "ViewTech is just a front for the prirates" or "ViewTech settles for $$$" that you would find relevant to this suit? It seams not.
> . . .
> How Echostar focuses it's resources, and whether this suit is a wise endeavor seams relevant too. I only brought it up to get off the law issue as YOU requested.


I asked you to get back to topic, not to pick another off topic to discuss.  
I probably should not have given the courtesy of a reply on all the OT stuff brought into this thread. If there is anything more to be said on EchoStart vs ViewTech please post.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

joblo said:


> Wrong. The victims of piracy are the content owners and rights holders, not the legitimate subscribers.
> 
> Black markets reduce demand in legitimate markets and thereby drive prices in the legitimate markets down, not up. Reduced demand can, in turn, lead to reduced supply, or in this case, fewer choices and/or channel offerings, but not higher prices.
> 
> There are many reasons to oppose piracy, but lowering prices for legitimate subscribers is not one of them.


This is true for consumer goods available in limited quantities. If echostar were marketing DVRs and there was a black market of echostar capable dvrs, demand for e*'s dvrs would be lowered.

It is the opposite for infinite products like digital code. If "napster" were free and legal, and everyone in the world simply shared 1 CD and made copies, that 1 cd would "cost" a few million to make and would have to be sold for that much!...as the saying goes...with published material, the first copy costs a few million, the rest, a few pennies.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

The best working analogy for piracy is someone climbing a fence and sneaking in to a sporting event/music concert. 

Should the stadium have higher walls? barbed-wire fences? Attack dogs?

People do sneak in to events to save the price of admission. If people learn it's easy to do, and do so in droves, and half would have bought tickets, the band/team loses out on cash, and people get to see their performance for free by being underhanded and sneaky.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

The question, IMHO, is did viewtech deliberately include abilities in their receivers that have no other useful purpose than hacking pay-tv, or do things in such a way that could facilitate hacking when some other, less hack-worthy way of doing things was available.


You see, if viewtech's software was simply the first to be "cracked" to e* codes, and therefore became the most popular, it is no fault of theirs. That would be like faulting XYZ microave oven company because someone posted a u-tube mentioning that model and demonstrating how to turn it into a harmful weapon, when in fact any microwave COULD be used...

or blaming a lighter company for being the company 90% of child-lit fires are lit by...simply because it is the cheapest to purchase.

If their only fault is being the cheapest model out there that can be used to hack, their only crime is being less expensive.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> This is a small problem that can be dealt with in another manner


How would you suggest that they deal with the "small problem"? I see lots of comments about this being a waste of their money, but no suggestions of what to do short of the law suit.  It seems to me that they are doing the right thing. In the example of the sneaking into the sporting event or concert, Viewtech is the one who cut the hole in the fence.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> If their only fault is being the cheapest model out there that can be used to hack, their only crime is being less expensive.


The most important charge against them is that they paid to have the software developed to use their devices to hack the Echostar stream and then released the hack to the public.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Richard King said:


> In the example of the sneaking into the sporting event or concert, Viewtech is the one who cut the hole in the fence.


And standing there collecting $10 from everyone that uses that access....if the allegations are true.

Some would believe that this is all just heresay and E* has no facts to back up the lawsuit but if they didn't have enough credible evidence to convince a judge it has some merit the suit would have been dismissed quickly and you may never have even heard of it. My guess is that E* will likely spend more on lawyers than they could ever hope to recover from the defendents, but shutting down hackers is important as it is a REAL threat to their on-going profitibility.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

And now E* is now going after the other FTA manufacturers like Pansat.

A nice side effect for them in this case is to lock out FTA even if they didn't intend to. Yes I know I've said that before.

But shouldn't they be going after the coders like ******? What if the coders figured out the programs without help from the FTA makers? I think that's possible. Then the FTA makers could not be held for the piracy charges.


----------



## dthreet (Jun 6, 2006)

lord, Ecostar is world know for being the theif and not fallowing regulations. However its ok for them to take charge when someone does something back to them.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Art7220 said:


> And now E* is now going after the other FTA manufacturers like Pansat.


Where have you seen this? Do you have a link?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Found it: http://news.justia.com/cases/20070525209938/ This was filed Sept 11th. Where have you guys been?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Anybody have more details about the Panarex lawsuit? Such as a link to the original complaint?


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

Well this is interesting. This recap was taken from the Retailer Chat that took place today.

FREE-TO-AIR RECEIVER PIRACY

* Our industry has a Free to Air (FTA) piracy problem.

* Piracy hurts all of us.

* We have sued the largest FTA distributors in the US because they are encouraging and facilitating the FTA piracy problem.

* Echostar is requiring that any Retailer selling any FTA receivers stop such practices within 30 days.

* Failure to comply will lead to disciplinary action.

I sense a restraint of trade violation here. What's next, they can't sell C-Band equipment or DirecTV eq.?

Man I want to dissect some of these statements. So I will...

> Our industry has a ... piracy problem.

As opposed to a leaky security problem. Aren't we tarnishing legal FTA reception? Who cares? There's no such thing.

> Piracy hurts all of us.

Yeah, hurts your yacht or mansion payments. Can't solve the poverty or hunger problems in this country huh? Sorry, I digress.

-A- That's all I have. Feel free to chime in.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

OK, one more

> Failure to comply will lead to disciplinary action.

If those dealers sold FTA strictly for legal use, there's no problem. Dealers should pursue legal action against DN.


----------



## STDog (Mar 22, 2007)

Art7220 said:


> I sense a restraint of trade violation here. What's next, they can't sell C-Band equipment or DirecTV eq.?


WOW. That could be a bad move for Echostar. Wonder what "disciplinary action" could entail?

I though the retailers were seperate/independent companies. As such that can sell competing products, like car dealers (One here sells the Chrysler and Cadillac. The GM dealer doesn't sell Cadillac). Or are they licensed franchise operations?

How can Echostar dictate the policies of another, independent business?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

STDog said:


> How can Echostar dictate the policies of another, independent business?


They are only dictating the policies of their own company. They are, in essence, cutting their sales force by refusing to allow their system to be sold by certain resale operations.

I believe it is a bad decision (they need to phrase it differently) but it should be within their companies rights to refuse to do business with any retailer. (The only limit on that would be prior contracts that specifically allowed FTA sales. Likely those would be canceled under the same kind of maneuver that the credit cards use ... impose new terms and say you are welcome to leave if you disagree.)

A rule that said any retailer caught selling hacked or hackable FTA receivers would immediately lose their ability to sell E* stuff and all commissions that have not been paid _plus_ other penalties imposed by a court would be better. The trouble is, sleazy retailers can hang a Dish Network sign outside their door or on their website - attracting customers who want Dish Network - and then be sold a "FTA" box that provides the same channels.

I suspect that any major players will just split their business selling E* out of one store and FTA out of another ... or drop whichever side of the business is making the least money.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

EchoStar News from the Courts
from skyreport.com

Not long ago, EchoStar notified its authorized dealer chain to refrain from selling free-to-air receivers because the act violates company policy. Undoubtedly the move comes as a response to its current legal battle with FTA receiver distributor Viewtech.

This week, EchoStar asked that a federal judge in San Diego throw out Viewtech's request to have the satellite company's lawsuit against it dismissed. EchoStar's suit, filed earlier this year, claims Viewtech knowingly designs, manufactures and distributes FTA receivers to purposely allow users to steal DISH Network TV service - a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

EchoStar said Viewtech developed software that users can download that transforms the otherwise legal receivers into signal piracy tools. In Viewtech's request to have the original lawsuit thrown out, the technology firm claimed EchoStar does not own the copyrights to the programming DISH Network distributes. EchoStar asked the court to reject that notion as well.

In other EchoStar legal news, the satellite company added more names to its list of end users it has sued for allegedly pirating DISH Network's signals. The company filed a lawsuit against Florida resident Miguel Garcia and two Illinois residents Andrew and Beth McSkimming alleging the unauthorized customers used modified receivers to steal DISH programming.

According to reports, EchoStar decided to pursue both cases after Garcia and the McSkimmings returned receivers to the company and it found them to be altered. The lawsuits claim the consumers also violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Communications Act of 1934.

( Source: http://www.telcomedianews.com/archives/view/?publication_id=1&release_id=645#article4 )


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Darkman said:


> Illinois residents Andrew and Beth McSkimming alleging the unauthorized customers used modified receivers to steal DISH programming.


They made that name up!! LOL :rolling:


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

NOT the "Garcia" however?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Darkman said:


> In Viewtech's request to have the original lawsuit thrown out, the technology firm claimed EchoStar does not own the copyrights to the programming DISH Network distributes. EchoStar asked the court to reject that notion as well.


This is where Viewtech hung themselves. The DMCA doesn't care who owns the content.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> the technology firm claimed EchoStar does not own the copyrights to the programming DISH Network distributes.


They could be opening up themselves to a suit from every channel provider on Dish if they have this upheld. THey must have gotten their lawyer from McLawyers.com.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> According to reports, EchoStar decided to pursue both cases after Garcia and the McSkimmings returned receivers to the company and it found them to be altered.


:lol: Now this is a bright pair. "My receiver won't steal channels anymore, would you fix them for me?"


----------

