# CBS NEWS to help Directv with their satellite piracy TONIGHT



## JamesD (Sep 25, 2003)

CBS NEWS will have a segment on Directv's satellite 'piracy' problems - TONIGHT 10/10/03

Should prove very helpful to Directv's cause. All e-mails can be sent to CBS

[email protected] s[email protected]


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Tagged for recording. I'm going to be watching this one closely for the Internet angle.


----------



## Cyclone (Jul 1, 2002)

*Yawn* If D* wanted to secure their network, implementing better equipment and technology would be far more effective. Instead they are tying up the court system because they leave the holes in their network and won't fix it themselves.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2003)

Cyclone said:


> *Yawn* If D* wanted to secure their network, implementing better equipment and technology would be far more effective. Instead they are tying up the court system because they leave the holes in their network and won't fix it themselves.


I hope all of you PRO EXTORTIONIST get a letter, and then pay DTV 3500 dollars.


----------



## Karl Foster (Mar 23, 2002)

I agree. They need to enforce the phone line requirement and force receivers to call in. Seems like a simple solution to me. Sure it would p*ss of some folks, but it is in the customer agreement. Forcing receivers to call in and sending disabling signals to all other cards would take care of the problem. They already have the ability to secure their systsem, they just refuse to put those procedures in place. Just my $.02 worth.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2003)

Karl Foster said:


> I agree. They need to enforce the phone line requirement and force receivers to call in. Seems like a simple solution to me. Sure it would p*ss of some folks, but it is in the customer agreement. Forcing receivers to call in and sending disabling signals to all other cards would take care of the problem. They already have the ability to secure their systsem, they just refuse to put those procedures in place. Just my $.02 worth.


See how easy it is to screw everyday law abiding Americans. Just sue them, with or without proof of wrong doing, carpet bombing, send out 100,000 extortion letters, some will get so scared they just settle.

This is a business model that some Big Corporations are using. Suing "end-users". I think the greed factor on this one is off the charts though. OK, you stole some MP3's, they have your IP address of your PC...thats proof of illegal activity. OK, you stole cable TV programming because you purchased a box specifically designed for that purpose...hmmmm...maybe a good case there.

What you bought a card reader, or some other smart card technology device.....YOUR GUILTY OF SATELLITE PIRACY !!!!
PAY DIRECT TV 3500 DOLLARS OR ELSE..............I smell a rat here, something is wrong with the system if these criminals get away with that. Believe me allot of people are being hurt by this and it's an injustice that will be righted, it's Terrorism on the innocent little guys wallet.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Ho - Hum - just saw the piece - nothing that we haven't seen discussed here before...

Actually - we have DISCUSSED the relevant points of this in far more depth than the news will ever give it...


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2003)

Cyclone said:


> *Yawn* If D* wanted to secure their network, implementing better equipment and technology would be far more effective. Instead they are tying up the court system because they leave the holes in their network and won't fix it themselves.


DTV most effective way to eliminate piracy is to lower the price for their service. Would anyone bother to steal their signal if their DTV bill was $10 a month?

But then again DTV could not care less about piracy. They are probably happier if the number doubles, so they can have more people to extort. They should change their logo to the $.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Once again we see how Direct TV takes a high and mighty attitude toward the public. They refused to appear on CBS news and just sent a false statement. They (DIRECT) state that the only use for the product is to rip them off for Direct TV. They seem to forget this is a legal and legitimate product that is legal to use and buy for other purposes. I always see so many on this and other boards refusing to admit that Direct TV could be wrong in there approach. They seem to think that everyone is a crook that has this product or has purchased it for legal purposes. Perhaps after tonights broadcast on CBS news they will mend there ways before they loose customers or they suffer any set backs because of the negative way they were potrayed in the story tonight, they way I seen the story come across to the public.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> DTV most effective way to eliminate piracy is to lower the price for their service. Would anyone bother to steal their signal if their DTV bill was $10 a month?


I suspect you want everyting in the sky for that $10.00 per month? People who make such statements just show their TOTAL ignorance about the industry and the cost of doing business.


----------



## JamesD (Sep 25, 2003)

Karl, the phone line - continuous hook-up is the easiest answer, and most cost effective for everyone. My own phone line,house , was struck by lightning in July 1995, and damaged the $699.00 - $756.00 w/ Tax IRD. Believe it or not, Directv. Thompson Electronics replaced my IRD at NO cost after many phone calls…many 25 minute phone calls…many 25 minute phone calls that ended in 'hang-ups'…Persistence pays off…
Anyway, my phone has NOT been hooked- up since then, ever. Any Movies, PPV,etc that I desired I would just call in - there are CLEAR records about these call in's. Directv or The End User Group(EUG) never bothered to check my Billing Records - the proof AGAINST 'piracy' was in those records…they knew this, but proceeded on with their lawsuit.

If a continuous phone line hook-up was REALLY a requirement, I would comply, Especially, since the price of these IRD's is basically … zero…

Directv does have the ability to ensure their signal is secure, but they NEVER have had the right to sue &/or EXTORT people for Private Property.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2003)

Richard King said:


> I suspect you want everyting in the sky for that $10.00 per month? People who make such statements just show their TOTAL ignorance about the industry and the cost of doing business.


It was just an example! I picked a ridiculous amount just to make a point. Ever heard of a figure of speech called hyperbole?

By the way it is a well known fact that industries that really want to fight piracy, lower the price of their product of service. That's what the software industry did a while ago and that what Universal records did just recently.

I don't mean to disrespect you, but statements like yours tend to show a lack of tolerance and breadth of vision.



Richard King said:


> I suspect you want everyting in the sky for that $10.00 per month? .


If you put it like that, considering that the sky belongs to everybody and no one owns it, I want everything for free!


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

So, DirecTv, a company that has yet to make a full year profit since inception should drop their pricing to stop piracy? I don't think so.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> Universal records did just recently.


Universal did this by eliminating Coop advertising and by eliminating promotional payments to their retailers and "pay for play" promotions with retailers and broadcasters. The effect of this drop will not be felt by Universal, but by the retailers and broadcasters. Directv could do promotional cuts, but be prepared for increasing hardware costs, increased PPV costs, installation charges upon purchase, etc.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2003)

Richard King said:


> So, DirecTv, a company that has yet to make a full year profit since inception should drop their pricing to stop piracy? I don't think so.


Do you have a better idea?
I think that it would be cheaper than paying hundreds of lawyers who have to keep up with a minimum of 10,000 lawsuits. And we both know that lawyers' services are not cheap.

To top everything DTV is suing its own customers! A lot of people canceled their subscription, and many switched to Dish Network or cable. Nobody in their right mind would keep the service, after being sued.

Don't get me wrong here: stealing is not right and DTV has the right to prosecute those who actually steals their signal. A lot of people put a lot of work and time to make sure everything works all the time (I am talking about people who work for DTV) and they certainly deserve to be paid for it.
You must admit though, that this intimidation/extortion tactics are completely unfair. Would you be surprised if I told you that DTV sued someone who was blind? No, I am not making it up and, I don't know about you, but I have an extremely hard time believing that thiss poor man had any interest in stealing DTV signal!

No one is saying that DTV is wrong to sue people who steal their signal, what is wrong is the way they are going about it. What's wrong is that they conduct NO investigation at all before they file charges. And this is per their own admission. If you haven't already, you should read Larry Rissler deposition. You will find out that he admits that DTV did no investigation prior to filing the charges and they don't have any evidence at all against anybody as far as them intercepting DTV signal.

You can't deny this is all about money and extorting it from people by way of intimidation. If you are not familiar with it, you should also take a look at the class action suit filed against DTV in August, it might give you a different perspective.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2003)

thank god for dishnet. at least the competition keeps DTV in check.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2003)

Richard King said:


> Universal did this by eliminating Coop advertising and by eliminating promotional payments to their retailers and "pay for play" promotions with retailers and broadcasters. The effect of this drop will not be felt by Universal, but by the retailers and broadcasters. Directv could do promotional cuts, but be prepared for increasing hardware costs, increased PPV costs, installation charges upon purchase, etc.


Scratch the first question of my previous message, I had not read this second part you posted


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> You can't deny this is all about money and extorting it from people by way of intimidation.


Certainly it is about money. Directv is trying to put the scare into future potential thieves (why not call them what they are rather then the somewhat "romantic" name of pirate). I suspect that with all the distributors of the theft equipment that they have shut down that they are having an amount of success at this. Going after the theft equipment distributors' customer lists is the most efficient way of accomplishing this and getting the word out that they will no longer accept having their product devalued.

http://www.skyreport.com/viewskyreport.cfm?ReleaseID=1226#Story2


> DirecTV Nails Another Pirate
> 
> Showing that it will go after anyone pirating satellite TV signals, DirecTV said it came to a last-minute agreement with an "end-user" allegedly involved in theft of the service.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Having seen the piece, (whew), the Internet was barely mentioned. I bet you a 99 cent cheeseburger that the person interviewed who said "Never had DirecTV, I have cable" will probably not go with DBS because of this. 

I thought DirecTV was distributing P4/P5 cards now, and that all subscribers were to get the new cards so that they could cut off the compromised data stream. In addition, this changeover was supposed to be completed at the end of last year.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

How exactly do they "help" RirecTV?


----------



## JamesD (Sep 25, 2003)

It should prove 'helpful' to Directv's plight against satellite piracy, by exposing this problem. Seems like CBS decided to take a pro-piracy, or Rather, pro-privacy angle…

Follow-up should be even more telling.

Maybe 'ol Dan does know what the 'frequency' is...


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

DTV and E* *both* are very well capable of stopping the piracy, they just won't.

1. Smart cards are insane. It's BEGGING for piracy. They should have firmware on board every receiver that does the same thing and stays in the receiver. Does your digital cable box have a card? Not in most cases. Instead, it receives a hit and activates and stays active until it needs a new hit and if it does not receive that hit by the deadline encoded in the last hit, it shuts off. To say DBS can't do this is to say they can't send a hit down as they already do. EVERY box should require a regular hit to stay on.

2. Smart LNB and switch circuitry, which is addressable, is easily doable. Addressable taps have been used in many cable systems for years. LNBs and switches which require regular hits, and also require that they see the same equipment attached as when they received the hit, are mandatory. To say they can't do it is to say that MAC addressing as we see in networking can't be done.

No phone line is then required. There are a lot of DBS users who are totally phobic about any hardline connection and have no phone line but instead are totally reliant on cell phones. To require a phone line is to require an extra cost to another service provider and something cable doesn't do. It works against DBS.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

waydwolf said:


> 1. Smart cards are insane. It's BEGGING for piracy. They should have firmware on board every receiver that does the same thing and stays in the receiver. Does your digital cable box have a card? Not in most cases. Instead, it receives a hit and activates and stays active until it needs a new hit and if it does not receive that hit by the deadline encoded in the last hit, it shuts off. To say DBS can't do this is to say they can't send a hit down as they already do. EVERY box should require a regular hit to stay on..


The new receivers coming out use integrated smartcard. They all have smartcard slots but I'm pretty sure they are all off. Since the old x000 (except 6000) receivers don't work on SuperDish then we'll probably see DISH start to offer people cheap 111 models in exchange for their old x000 which they could then junk or do whatever with.


----------



## kiddk1 (Oct 17, 2003)

Karl Foster said:


> I agree. They need to enforce the phone line requirement and force receivers to call in. .


Some of us do not have a land line. It is much cheaper to go with a cell phone sometimes.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

:welcome_s to DBSTalk, Kiddk1! 

Same here. The only reason why I still have a land line is because I have to connect to work with a dial-up connect from home.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2003)

kiddk1 said:


> Some of us do not have a land line. It is much cheaper to go with a cell phone sometimes.


I also do not have a land line, and I have no intension of getting one. I get free long distance and all the local calls I need to make on my cell for less than basic land line service costs without long distance service. If Dish Network made me hook up to a land line, they would either lose me as a customer, let me file a waver on my account to not hook up through land line, or pay for my land line. I'm sure there are a lot of others just like me.

You can't force someone to buy another service just to receive your service.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

But, remember, they were designing the receivers in 1996 with the assumption that everyone has a land line. I think my first cell phone was 1995, and the plans were not as attractive as they are now.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

They could limit you to one receiver to your account unless you have a land based phone line. Hard to stack units if you only have one. I agree though they will have to come up with another way to keep up with their receivers if people keep dropping land lines to go with cellular phones. Dish and Directv will have to come up with a new way to keep up with the changes in technology.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It would be a major change, but putting a transmitted serial number on the LNB would be a way of testing for accounts being connected to the same dish. They could use the gap between Odd and Even channels on a stacked LNB.

An ether connection between receivers would serve a similar purpose. Or shifting people over to 322/522 type receivers.

JL


----------

