DCMA Law...Is this the Truth? [Archive] - Lounge0101 Discussion Forum

View Full Version : DCMA Law...Is this the Truth?

eyepatch

March 6th, 2003, 08:13 PM

I thought the 1998 Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) lets satellite tv providers only sue manufacturers and distributors of satellite equipment. I have read the DCMA law people are being sued under is ownership of a device capable of stealing the signal, not theft of signal. So if they can prove you bought the device you are guilty. ALl they have to prove is that you purchased the device (they may have some kind of record ) the rest is history. Just does not seem a very fair justice system. Buying something that came broken or to hard to figure out may have stopped alot of people from stealing the signal. This new law is going to cause alot of problems for alot of reason and needs to be ammended. The supreme court needs to look into this. :gg

To The Real King!!

March 6th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Hi Eyepatch,

Firstly the DMCA has sections covering the possession of a device (not buying it) that can allow encrypted Satellite signals to be received without payment and the actual reception or viewing of the signal too (signal theft). The real question is whether you POSSESS such a device or not. Even buying one is not yet an offence if you do not possess it. For instance if you purchased such a device (more on this) but got ripped off and it was not received by you then you have not broken the law.

The one catch is that it has not yet been determined by the courts in Satellite cases as to WHICH DEVICES qualify for this.

For instance a bootloader (not a loader) cannot decrypt anything and it is yet undetermined if this device qualifies. All this does is allow an access card or any other SLE 44 Siemens card that uses this device to START UP when the appropriate 'write once' bytes have been changed. That does not meet the standard as described in the DMCA act.

So a court ruling on a bootloader, if ruling correctly, cannot state that this device is a illegal encryption device. But will they--who knows.

Is a ISO 7816 reader/writer an illegal device under the DMCA. It could be just like a kitchen knife could be used to kill but the ISO7816 reader/writer or an unlooper (programmable reader/writer) has many other uses (many of them but not all) and so that cannot be illegal if you are writing software for computer or door security for example. But you will have to PROVE that this was your real usage.

The problem is that many people do not want to push this in court for various reasons from they cannot afford the time to many others including the cost, even though doing this may well be the correct way to be acquitted or have them drop the case. But it is NEVER sure when you go to court. Very often the company bringing the case KNOWS he cannot win in a court but being good at BLUFFING is a big advantage here.

People who are sued have the right to go to court and defend themselves and many who are not guilty as accused will usually get off and not be convicted as should be the case. But unfortunately many quit before they get there, settle and never end up proving their innocence. That is a choice that if people make it because its best for them and their family then I cannot argue with that. People should always do what is best for them.

But many who do not realize it would WIN if they just pressed a little harder and played the same bluffing game as he who brought the case. Unfortunately many believe what is said on websites where they are often wrongly advised.

A lawyer is who to consult and believe and if you tell your lawyer you are innocent and supply him with the reason you have the device, usually he will tell you to press the case. But he will also advise you of the outside costs (usually the top price it could cost) and people give up. But they will tell you , if honest, that a innocent defendant wont be convicted and if they are very fair they would also tell you that it will probably NOT reach a court if you have a good reason. In that case the costs will be MUCH lower.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (CONSTITUTIONAL) (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

e1676

March 7th, 2003, 09:02 AM

I have listened to various replies saying you are guilty if you just purchased a programmer, I think these people are shills of DTV trying to scare others into settling. I have a AM Express Blue card, & an add from 1999 saying if you get a programmer you can pay online, secure, guarrenteed by Am Express. Some people say there is no other
use for these than pirateing, let DTV sue me, then I can countersue.

godzla

March 7th, 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by To The Real King!!
Firstly the DMCA has sections covering the possession of a device (not buying it) that can allow encrypted Satellite signals to be received without payment and the actual reception or viewing of the signal too (signal theft). The real question is whether you POSSESS such a device or not. Even buying one is not yet an offence if you do not possess it. For instance if you purchased such a device (more on this) but got ripped off and it was not received by you then you have not broken the law.

The devices (bootloader, programmer, unlooper, etc.) allow you to alter the cards. They don't actively allow you to receive and decrypt the signals, unlike pirate cable boxes that actively decrypt the signal.

huseless

March 7th, 2003, 11:32 AM

The AMEX programmer is a "smart" programmer while the iso's used for dtv h cards are "phoenix" ( t=0 vs t=1), so they are not interchangeable even though they are both iso standard.
But dtv only cares where you bought the device, buying anything from a supplier catering to pirates means you have intent to pirate signal in their estimation. All they have to do is convince the court that its more than 50% probable thats why you bought the device.
DTV prevails because most freetvers have no understanding of what their rights really are and the laws despite excellent posts here.

REDx

March 7th, 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by huseless

But dtv only cares where you bought the device, buying anything from a supplier catering to pirates means you have intent to pirate signal in their estimation. All they have to do is convince the court that its more than 50% probable thats why you bought the device.
DTV prevails because most freetvers have no understanding of what their rights really are and the laws despite excellent posts here.
im of the same mind you are on this point.
as i have posted in the past a card
reader even if it was determined to
be illegal. isnt a civil actionable
offence. it is a federal offence.
i know for a fact the netsignia 210
that was given to me by a litronic
distributor is legal.
another interesting fact is that from
the court action and motions i have been
following. that once dtv files suit all
it takes is a motion by your attorney,
and dtv drops the illegal equipment cause
of action. dtv still sueson the pirateing
of there signal.it would appear they are
going to use the fact you purchased the
reader or what ever from a pirate site.
as evidence you used it to steal there
signal.

eyepatch

March 7th, 2003, 02:38 PM

So what you are saying is that if you possess the item then you are guilty. Never used it , it was broken, could not figure it out is a useless statement. So stating that you never got the item is the only way out. Even if you payed COD, or fex ex delivered it the box once open was empty. Made you mad and you were never refunded by the dealer. Now I no DTV will ask "Why did you buy it?. Good question and I hope some of the people out there can answer that one. Seems to me DTV must prove that you possess the item and then if not proof you stoled there signal. Either way How Can They. I just point out a few of these questions because I know there are alot of people out there worried about it.

REDx

March 7th, 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by eyepatch
So what you are saying is that if you possess the item then you are guilty. Never used it , it was broken, could not figure it out is a useless statement.

pretty much yes till you get to discovery.
end user group dosent care about whether
you are guilty or not. its there job to
collect the money. ya dont pay they kick
it up to the legal department.

So stating that you never got the item is the only way out. Even if you payed COD, or fex ex delivered it the box once open was empty. Made you mad and you were never refunded by the dealer.

once again end user group could careless. once
they sue you. all your lawyer has do is file a
motion and they will drop the illegal equipment
cause of action. they will move forward with
signal theft.

Now I no DTV will ask "Why did you buy it?. Good question and I hope some of the people out there can answer that one. Seems to me DTV must prove that you possess the item and then if not proof you stoled there signal.

all they gotta prove is signal theft. they will
try to do that thru the discovery process.
this is when you have the chance to beg them
to let you alone. tell them your sad story and
show any proof you may have the you are not
guilty. your only other choice is to spend
thousands trying to defend yourself.

Either way How Can They. I just point out a few of these questions because I know there are alot of people out there worried about it.

sucks doesnt it. Monica wasnt the only
person Clinton screwed lol.

eeprom7777

March 7th, 2003, 05:03 PM

I personally bought all of my dss related hardware devices to allow me to participate, on a first hand basis, in the massive online collaboration and communities that have formed, studying the technical intricacies of these systems. These communities have formed solely from their lack of expenditures on securities that their business model relies so heavily on. These also promise to grow even larger from their continued lack of addressing the cause.

Anyone that had some programming background I would think would be naturally attracted to this environment. And how would you NOT notice. Recently, I put P4 in yahoo, looking for Pentium 4 cpus, and to my surprise the P4 forum right here at PD was number 12 on the list! You might say their history of lax security has made even their secure card as popular on-line as a Pentium IV cpu!!!

It's obvious that defrauding them or their signal wouldn't be right. However, seeing the thousands of people in online communities actively participating in discussions of the technical aspects of their systems, while also stating the importance of maintaining a subscription, I just knew that with my coding background, that I'd be a natural at this. And with just a little common sense, I knew that I wouldn't be hurting or defrauding anyone.

My primary intention/goal was to become recognized or respected in a very large on-line community, that THEY created by skimping on security in the first place. As a matter of fact, these very cases themselves are proof that they are STILL not properly addressing their OWN security issues, but rather attacking the legalities of International Standard type devices.

Further, If they are allowed to continue and/or are successful, that would be like giving them the OKAY that they will NEVER have to address their own security issues again. Then they will be able to start using the H card again or even an F card. They won't be responsible for their own security! THEY ARE TRYING TO SUPPRESS TECHNOLOGY AS AN ALTERNATE PLAN TO AVOID THE CARD REPLACEMENT COSTS, AND are doing so at entirely YOUR $$$ (if you settle).

I've never watched much TV and still don't. Who has time for that? The benefits of studying embedded micro controllers vs. some negligible side affect, such as free TV, is of no comparison.

How many professional TV watchers do you really believe exist??? What is the real value here? Entertainment? Psychological conditioning? X-ray exposure? Weight gain?

How many professional programmers do you really believe exist??? What is the real value here? INFINITE future technical career paths! 10,000 years of TV won't equate to the educational value to be gained here! The whole TV issue is negligible by comparison.

(imho)

To The Real King!!

March 7th, 2003, 08:05 PM

Hi eeprom7777,

Very well stated sir, VERY WELL..http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (CONSTITUTIONAL) (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

no1b4me

March 7th, 2003, 09:33 PM

eeprom7777, two thumbs up. Well said!

ed12

March 9th, 2003, 10:15 AM

as i c it i can walk in and out of any iso7816 complaint card
ie i can make it talk to me and i can talk to it
dose matter who made it
i can still do it

tv is a for gone conculsion
who watchs that old meduim any-way?

my personal fav is the radio good ol fm

not video
if truth be told i relax to watch the news
and thats it

just a point

regards
ed:gg

travis_cornell

March 10th, 2003, 08:28 PM

I know that I am just a layman and I do not understand all the finer points of *the law*,however I still wonder at the success DTV is having in these cases. I get really lost when it comes to purchasing a card programming device becomes a revenue loss or copywrite infringement in and of itself. I have vhs and cd recorders but I fail to see how that proves I have stolen any copywrited property, any more than my possession of firearms makes me liable to a lawsuit from any bank or convenience store that has been robbed. Why should a card programmer be any different? A card programer by itself wont steal DTV signal. It also takes a computer, working software, an access card, a DTV satellite system and some knowledge on how to apply these to achieve signal theft. How many people might have purchased one of these devices thinking they could get free tv only to find out later that such an act is illegal and so never went any further, or did not achieve the knowledge or any of the other necessary components to actually achieve signal theft? Purchase of a card programming device is hardly prima facia evidence of signal theft by itself. How can DTV quantify its loss by a purchaser of a card programming device when it can't even prove if said device was ever delivered, ever used or even functioned in the first place? There is still a big question of where is the theft? You know, a while back I bought alot of fencing material INTENDING to refence my yard. It is still sitting in my garage, I still need a new fence. Will my fence ever be redone? Maybe, maybe not. I have a purchase and I have intent........alas the act itself remains uncommitted. I dont even think DTV can prove intent but even if they can, since when is intent without consummation and without actual loss by the plaintiff subject to compensation. Doesn't loss have to be proved and quantified? How can they say they lost $3500 dollars when it could be $100,000 or nothing? Isn't the burden still on the plaintiff to show and quantify said loss? How can any court support a law as constitutional when the thought of (or intent if you will) of committing a theft makes you liable for damages? I better not go to any more museum shows of the crown jewels on europe on display, it would be impossible for me to not *think* of stealing them. Heck if I thought about it long and hard enough I might even buy me some of those special glasses so I can see the hidden laser security beams around them. Shoot, I could get sued for billions for buying those glasses!!!! I know the burden of proof in civil courts is not what it is criminal courts, but there is such a HUGE gap between the evidence DTV possesses and the acts they allege. Is it really so bloody difficult to get a court to see that?

anvil

March 11th, 2003, 05:06 AM

One of the laws DTV uses against end users is 18 U.S.C. 2512 which sets forth criminal penalties for possesion of devices sold through the mail.

eeprom7777

March 12th, 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by anvil
One of the laws DTV uses against end users is 18 U.S.C. 2512 which sets forth criminal penalties for possesion of devices sold through the mail. You bring up a very good point anvil. If I may, the letter that I've seen states "sent" by mail, Not "sold" through the mail. The DMCA also clearly defines issues in regard to "trafficking", without regard to cost or sale (includes free distribution).

Also very important, and actually from the exact same sentence of said letter; "...sent by mail, knowing or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of an encrypted satellite signal."

Worst case scenario, Loader is Primarily designed as a PROGRAMMABLE ISO-7816 <-> PC INTERFACE. If you don't understand how this device is designed or works, YOU SHOULD! This is the equivalent of stating "the ONLY atmel code that exists IS to access the P3"!

So if you buy that primarily useful bit, be aware that 1. You don't know the devices primary design intents. and 2. You are admitting to "Having reason to know" which, while not only erroneous, could ONLY be the result of your intent and or actions in conjunction with said device. This is also probably why TTRK has stated a million times that none of these devices have actually failed this test in a federal court, because if you didn't buy it with the atmel code pre-loaded with SPECIFIC code, it can't. Even if it was, the devices primary usefulness is to allow interaction between a pc and a card, not a satellite signal, this should be obvious to anyone. Remember that these federal codes were not put forth to exclusively or primarily protect any one private company.

I think it's also important to point out that when this all started the dishes were a lot bigger. Many didn't have room, or adhere to the idea of a mechanical monstrosity in the front yard. These satellite companies designed a far smaller dish, to allow far more surreptitious reception of their encrypted satellite signals. I would URGE extreme caution here. IF it were to be found that you had purchased one of these smaller dishes, and say put it in the back yard or behind the barn, then it would become quite obvious that you had in fact purchased or received a device of a design that rendered it primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of an encrypted satellite signal. In fact, that IS the EXAct device that "intercepts" the encrypted signal. If you've done that, you're fried on this.

You could easily see that the main focus of that entire paragraph is to point out that Congress is "So strict" on these issues that they have made the "mere possession" illegal.

Further on they imply that as a move to stop their threats, that you should implicate yourself further, by moving from the "mere possession" of the device, to trafficking in the device by the act of receiving and forwarding it somewhere. Something the DMCA clearly prohibits.

And that raises a big question, where the heck would you be sending it? To the authorities? Obviously if Congress is so strict on mere possession (if the device WAS illegal) then no company or individual would be above this law? The device would be evidence in your case wouldn't it? Surrender? To who? Them? Good Idea, then I'll call the authorities and have THEM arrested for possession. THEY're the ones CLAIMING it's illegal!?! I think "the letter" is a lot closer to being illegal then any device. But I'm gonna leave that to the proffesionals.

I don't know much, but it does seem obvious that "the letter" could not have been drafted by a reputable company or firm of any sort.

I can also clearly see now why THE LORD himself denounced lawyers and hypocrites under the same topic in relation to this EXACT issue thousands of years ago...

LUKE 11:52

Thank You!

To The Real King!!

March 12th, 2003, 09:02 AM

Hi Folks,

Section 1B of the law Title 18 Sec 2512 states as follows.

(b) manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any
electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason
to know that the design of such device renders it primarily
useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire,
oral, or electronic communications, and that such device or any
component thereof has been or will be sent through the mail or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or

I think it is obvious that anyone taking a lawsuit that claims you are in breach of 1B must PROVE " the design of such device renders it primarily
useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire,
oral, or electronic communications"

I do not believe that a proper expert such as a University Professor who teaches courses on Smartcards and programmers could possibly say that the main purpose that the university teaches smart card programming is primarily to teach "surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications" or THEFT. In fact he can be counted on to explain why they teach smart card programming and the multiple uses of this new technology to mankind. Theft is certainly NOT among the multiple uses of smartcard programming and thus not a reason for having a programmer either. It could be but it certainly is not a PRIMARY reason..

He would have to believe that the Universities MAIN PURPOSE was that and I just do not think that is in any way credible or plausible. Universities do not teach things for the primary purpose of surreptitious interception which amounts to theft. Here is a list of a few Universities that teach smart card programming and there are thousands more teaching it today, This alone virtually ensures that, unlike what the accusations state, this is NOT THE PRIMARY REASON for an ISO7816 smart card reader/writer.

http://www.legal-rights.org/sc-programmers.html

This implies that to WIN a case based on this law, a company would have to PROVE that Universities teach smart card programming for the purpose of theft. Does not sound like a winning argument to me.

If a defendant produced a "court qualified expert" on his own behalf and a SmartCard professor is an excellent and credible witness who would easily be qualified by the court as an "expert" then it would be impossible to prove this basic part of the law and the case would fail.

How is anyone going to prove that an ISO 7816 smartcard programmer is a device that the law in Title 18 Sec 2512 means and is concerned with. If that cannot be proven then the accusations under this section must fail. Case dismissed!!!http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

So its clear that the responsibility here is for the defendant to hire a University Professor (who will have great credibility with the court) to tell the court this and causing the case to fail. The trouble is that most people COULD WIN THEIR CASES but unfortunately do not challenge in court believing it is too expensive. But do people not wonder WHY the opposition, when made aware of a good case by the defendant, do NOT go ahead and lose in court. They always drop the case instead if there is any chance of them loosing. Perhaps there is something to be learned in that.

This is what I meant in my first post above. Please refer to that for a brief understanding as to what it is I am stating.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (CONSTITUTIONAL) (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

REDx

March 12th, 2003, 09:33 AM

from what i have read here.
also from what has been posted
by Zakarian. along with the pacer
reports i have seen. is once you
get to court all it takes is a
motion. by your attorney to get
dtv to drop the illegal equipment
cause of action. they still move
forward with the stealing of the
signal portion of there case. which
as mr.Zakarian said they must prove
anyway.
so once you finally go to trial the
legality of the device itself really
isnt an issue. where you bought it
most likely will be used as evidence
that signal theft took place. also
to show that you have the equipment
to do so.

eeprom7777

March 12th, 2003, 12:15 PM

TTRK, Thank you so much for your input! My ideas, opinions, babbling or whatever, are just that without your expertise and experience, that when added, may lead to forming something actually useful!
Thank you soo much for your time and dedication, SIR!

eyepatch

March 15th, 2003, 07:56 PM

Well all I can say is...........Looks to me you either pay a lawyer, Daves Lawyers, or both. If you win then what...sue Dave and pay your own lawyer more. Final answer is...You are going to pay someone. Like it states..Wild Bill Clinton screwed more then just Monica.