Let's Dabate this Once and For All...

[condmca]

With regard to the post:
http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=1967895481#post1967895481
I wrote the following and would love to open it up to the scrutiny of our community here.
conDMCA


--------------------------------------------------------
Education is all we have in learning how to become productive citizens able to compete with our peers.
If reverse-engineering a ham radio helps educate my kid to give him or her a leg-up on his/her peers, I'm going to allow it.
I will further educate them that it IS illegal to transmit over ham radio w/o a license, but listening to the signal they intercept is perfectly legal.

The primary reason people believe it is illegal to intercept dave's signal is because dave distorts the truth. Now that dave owns some once popular DSS websites, we'll see the game of disinformation really begin.

When one reads about satellite pirates getting busted it is ALWAYS because they have defrauded dave in some recognizeable, measurable way.
When Wynona Ryder was on trial she faced a potential 10 tears in jail and $100,000 fine, the maximum the law would allow. Was it ever realistic she would be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law? Of course not. Just as it is unlikely that any end-user in here will ever be charged $10,000 restitution to dave, but conventional "wisdom" within these forums continues to say otherwise.
Should make us all wonder...

To further illustrate my understanding of what the FCC will allow:
If I own a small plot of land in the middle of the mojave desert and I own all my equipment outright, I can reverse engineer to my heart's delight. If what I'm reverse engineering is deemed to be harmful to someone I will likely be investigated.
When the investigation is through and I am deemed a threat to no one, I will be allowed to continue my hobby.

The lesson of the story is:
If I'm intelligent enough to open my test card to all channels, I am within my rights.
The minute I start broadcasting for the benefit of others around me however, I am then guilty, but not until then.
Likewise, if I sell or physically give my work away to help others receive dave's signal then and only then am I guilty of harming dave the corporate entity and am subject to prosecution.

Knowing that very few people in here keep this hobby to themselves is why, I believe, so many are paranoid that dave will prove them guilty. Thus, the perpetuation of this false belief that reverse engineering your own equipment is somehow illegal within this bastion of capitalism.
:gg

[Mustang5ohhh]

Good posts like this make for great debates. We have to look at this on a few different fronts. Hardware and software. I agree with the analogy of the HAM radio. Ok to build one, ok to listen to the signal but, not ok to use without a license. What if a certain part of this radio could not be built but had to be bought as a component item, lets say a power supply. Does the manufacturer of that power supply become a co-conspirator if you were to use the HAM radio for 2-way transmission? I'd have to say no. Does the dealer who sells an HU Unlooper for profit in anyway break any laws? Yes and no. His product will aid in the de-scrambling of Daves signal but, did he himself unscramble the signal. His product did help in defeating the security measures put in place to protect the card. Does that make him criminally responsible? No, he didn't defeat the security measures, the end user did. Is he civilly responsible? Maybe. He defeated a copyrighted security measure ... no burgler has gotten off by claiming he was testing the alarm system.

The HAM Radio license. What if the area/state/country doesn't offer a HAM radio license? Canadians don't have the option of subscribing to Dave, does that make them criminals for watching his signal? No.

Too many arguements for this broad topic. Food for thought.

5ohhh

[giveupdave]

Nice point with the ham radio.
Mind you, IMO DTV gets what they deserve if they can't make a secure platform. They have nobody to blame but themselves for the mess they are in. That set aside, DTV does own the signal, and that includes if it beams across your back yard. They don't need your permission, and since its a scrambled signal, not for public domain, it would be illegal without a doult to use methods to unscramble.

[morgana]

You are correct in one aspect and that is you are allowed to reverse engineer anything you wish, even encrypted hardware and software. Where you go wrong is, you are not allowed to use it in any way shape or forum without permission of the developer of the product. Not even for educational purposes or for personal use. It is not hard to understand that once a copyright and patents have been taken out on something, you can not for any reason make use of that unless you have the developers express permission. There is no cloudy or murky clause in that.

Yes there are many companies that do reverse engineering as their main money maker, and yes companies like Sony and Toshiba all want to know what they other has produced. Not to copy it but usually to enhance it and then add the newer version to their own products. They can not just take what they find and add it. They must significantly change the program before they can then patent it as their own, and add it to their product line. Does everyone not understand this?

There is no need to debate it, as this is how it has been for at least the last 2 decades, and will probably be the same way for some time to come. Laws like the new Digital Millenium law, have gone to great lengths to make sure penalties for those who break these laws, will be to make anyone who does abuse them, know what it is like to have everything ripped from you. I do not like these new laws as they can be defined to include way too many things that the drafters of the law did not intend. This also is the way laws have been defined many times in the past, and will again be the same in the future. It seems the laws will only get the limits set when the courts themselves say just where your rights start and finish and where the rights of the developers start and finish. I do not think that now with the way the courts are willing to suspend all our civil rights in the name of security, is a good time to ask them to set the limits.

The USA is really gone crazy with the suspending civil rights and Canada is not too far behind. I am really sad to admit that Canada can be so stupid as to go down this road, but pressures from the USA are forcing it that way. We all suspect or should I say know that both our governments are corrupt to the core. We mostly have voted the last decade or so, not for someone who we respect and think he will do a good job, but rather for someone we think will do us the least ammount of harm. It is sad, but it is true.

The laws also grant relief to the developers when people break the laws and we are seeing now that the civil penalies are enforcible across the borders. That was the one thing we had in our favour, but believe me when I say you are not immune from these actions. While for now the extra work in doing this is the only thing that has stopped them from coming here, but that may well change if you are stupid enough to make yourself a large target. Look around and see just who you think was a prime target and see what has become of their lives at this moment. It is not a pretty picture is it?

If you are from the USA and you do any kind of testing, you should prepare yourself to be sued, and large penalies will apply. Once they can show enough evidence from the civil trial to get you convicted, they may well find the District Attorney is now more then willing to look at the criminal aspect. This is where you could end up serving time. It happened before with the VCII. So do not think it will not happen again with this. So to get back on point, yes you can reverse engineer DTV's card. You can not make use of that information for any reason, not personal or educational. If you share it with others that as well is a crime. So just where will this help make a defence for you? What it will do is now put you on a watch list where DTV will make sure they find everything about what you are doing, and then they will destroy your life. People have got to quit running around screaming about how they have a right to do this or that, when common sense tells you it is not so. If you want to test things and know enough to shut up and not tell anyone, you probably will skate by. Not because the law could not get you, but only because no one will know you. If you want to be like the misquito who buzzes around to let you know he is there and then lands on the arm to take his bite of il-gotten goodies...... well splat is about the last thing you will hear.

[condmca]

Withdrawn by conDMCA

[morgana]

What a silly little person you are. Does everyone now see what an intellectual Unick looks like. You come on and say you want to debate something once and for all, but when the realities of what you are debating are pointed out in a clear manner, you do not try and debate them, but try to discredit the poster. Most people should be able to see from what I have posted, why trying your approach will not work, and would actually if anything get you caught. Now by my posting this it should save many from trying it and then finding out they are now going to pay the $10,000.00 in damages plus lawyers and court costs.

Wow, if I worked for DTV or NDS they would be very upset with me by now, do you not think. I feel I have to apologise to any of the real people who are seeking help in the threads. The information here was posted and designed to help your lawyers with many of the things and arguements that they otherwise would have to spend much research time on. It was designed to help keep your legal bills down and sometimes yes, we can find a real break through with laws and case histories. Every time a case will be ruled on, this site will analyse the verdict and see where we need to go from there.

Condmca, you can either be part of the problem or solution, but when you just try and discredit me, all I can say is I feel sorry for you, as that is a responce of a man who has run out of ideas to debate.

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by morgana
What a silly little person you are...

Condmca, you can either be part of the problem or solution, but when you just try and discredit me, all I can say is I feel sorry for you, as that is a responce of a man who has run out of ideas to debate.

The big problem is all of the nonsense posters just post crap, and then never come back to admit they were wrong. Whether it is the "Ignore the letter" advice, or these bogus attempts at loop holes.

Condmca, if you are really willing to try some of these stunts, I think everyone here will help you as much as possible. But, trying to prove you have a legitimate right to reverse engineer DTV's CAM while they are sueing you for piracy is an uphill struggle.

Not many people here believe it is feasible. But if you are really willing to try it, I think everybody will jump in and try to help. Otherwise, lets drop the sillyness.

[condmca]

Originally posted by morgana
What a silly little person you are. Does everyone now see what an intellectual Unick looks like. You come on and say you want to debate something once and for all, but when the realities of what you are debating are pointed out in a clear manner, you do not try and debate them, but try to discredit the poster.

Well...Let me first say that I was duped by that e-mail someone sent out. :eek:
I was kinda quick to post something. Not wanting to post a brand new thread, I followed up on this thread. Not meaning to target you specifically Morgana (although I stand by my beliefs as to who "might" work for dave and who probably pays restitution in here), it most likely looked that way. For this, I am sorry.

For the record, my goal was not to take away from the debate I posted earlier, let it continue please.
Also, although it was eloquently written Morgana, I do not believe you've debunked anything I've written.

Originally posted by morgana
Most people should be able to see from what I have posted, why trying your approach will not work, and would actually if anything get you caught.

Once again, I am not, nor have I ever recommended my hypotheticals as defense tactics. I recommend simply waiting for the summons, (if you're even deemed worthy of a summons), and then having your attorney speak on your behalf.

Originally posted by morgana
Now by my posting this it should save many from trying it and then finding out they are now going to pay the $10,000.00 in damages plus lawyers and court costs.


This interjection of scare tactics only lends to my beliefs btw.

This letter campaign would never succeed if people didn't read that it succeeds.


Originally posted by morgana
Wow, if I worked for DTV or NDS they would be very upset with me by now, do you not think. I feel I have to apologise to any of the real people who are seeking help in the threads. The information here was posted and designed to help your lawyers with many of the things and arguements that they otherwise would have to spend much research time on. It was designed to help keep your legal bills down and sometimes yes, we can find a real break through with laws and case histories. Every time a case will be ruled on, this site will analyse the verdict and see where we need to go from there.

But the fact still remains, there are no legitimate cases involving simple end users. The legitimate suits exist where people have made money off of this hobby or where people have re-transmitted dave's signal illegally.
If one hasn't defrauded dave and one keeps their mouths' shut once served, ALL reputable judges will dismiss Directv's claims.


Originally posted by morgana
Condmca, you can either be part of the problem or solution, but when you just try and discredit me, all I can say is I feel sorry for you, as that is a responce of a man who has run out of ideas to debate.

I am trying to be part of the solution. I will not defend myself with regard to this.
Once again I apologize If I appearantly targetted you morgana. I will withdraw my earlier post as it does read as being inflammatory. I can play fair and I will.:D

[condmca]

Originally posted by Salty Jizm
The big problem is all of the nonsense posters just post crap, and then never come back to admit they were wrong. Whether it is the "Ignore the letter" advice, or these bogus attempts at loop holes.

Condmca, if you are really willing to try some of these stunts, I think everyone here will help you as much as possible. But, trying to prove you have a legitimate right to reverse engineer DTV's CAM while they are sueing you for piracy is an uphill struggle.

Not many people here believe it is feasible. But if you are really willing to try it, I think everybody will jump in and try to help. Otherwise, lets drop the sillyness.

I have withdrawn my silly remark.

As to the reverse engineering of DTV's CAM while they are only ATTEMPTING to sue you, I contend that it IS legal and that the courts will ultimately rule in favor of all the innocent end-users in here.
Of those that are guilty of profiting off this hobby, I certainly won't attempt to write on their behalf.

conDMCA

[morgana]

I accept your apology and am sorry if I was harsh, but I will also stand by what I said Reverse engineering is perfectly legal. You just can not use the code to even test, or educate. It has coprights and patents that say you have no right to use it and the developers have the right to sue you for any damages.

Just as a example, if I write an update to windows that will give it a better feel and speed. I can not sell my update with the windows code at all. As it would then be me infringing on their code. When you repair a card even if you write the original code to it, then also says you have now used the code to save you money, at the expense of DTV. Reverse engineering is to see what is there and not ment to be copied and used. It is so you can see what your competitor did and then you develope something similar but it has to be significantly different to not cause patenet and copyright infringement.

They is lots of case law on this and believe me when I say the courts are a lot more inline with the copyright holder then they were back when they first decided to lean that way. Use the defence if you like but make sure you speak to a lawyer and make sure you know the path you take. It is not a time to get mired down in legal posturing as they will be looking for sacraficial lambs.

[Salty Jizm]

Another inherent problem with claiming 'reverse engineering' is this. If you are really reverse engineering something complicated, you have to study it in its natural environment. You have to watch how it behaves and how it responds to different stimuli.

So, now you have a dump of the code and tools to put new code on the card. You have the means to watch how it responds to normal stimuli from the IRD. And you somehow need to convince the court that this was just done with the intention of learning what is inside the card and not to defeat its security protocol.

I'm thinking this is going to be a tough row to hoe.

[Mustang5ohhh]

I'm thinking this is going to be a tough row to hoe.

LMAO ... good one!

Proving to a court of law that your intent was stictly educational would be a tough sell. Having paid for a premium subscription with the odd PPV purchase would definetly help your arguement. The toughest part of the arguement would be "How did this benefit your education?". Just because it was there to do? Not a valid arguement. You'd have to be able to argue that somewhere down the road, defeating the smart card security, made you a more intelligent human being. If you can answer that (without laughing), then your arguement is won.

[Salty Jizm]

Agreed... Certainly a person (or company) has the right to reverse engineer stuff. But remember, your in the middle of a lawsuit that accuses you of piracy. The only thing you are going to accomplish is proving how technically competent you are and how easy it would be for you to load altered code onto thier card.

If it was a criminal case, the reverse engineering scenario might be useful to raise 'reasonable doubt'. But in the civil proceedings, I suspect you are just helping them build the case against you.