Innocent Plea in DirecTV Piracy Case

[Steve Mehs]

Igor Serebryany, the 19-year-old University of Chicago student accused of stealing details for DirecTV's new conditional access system and then distributing the information on the Internet, pleaded not guilty to the charges in Los Angeles federal court this week.

Serebryany, indicted by a federal grand jury earlier in the month on three felony counts of theft of trade secrets, faces 10 years in prison if convicted of the charges, according to reports. The student allegedly stole the information from a Los Angeles law firm which was doing legal work for DirecTV. At the time, he was working for an outside printing and copying service preparing paperwork for the law office on the satellite TV company's behalf.

The information taken reportedly deals with DirecTV's fourth-generation access system, known as the "P4" card. Earlier in the month, DirecTV officials said the security of its conditional access system was not compromised despite what happened with the stolen information.

From SkyReport (http://www.skyreport.com/skyreport/jan2003/012903.shtm#three) (Used with Permission)

[Wondering in Seattle]

There is something very strange about this case. Igor Serebryany did not receive any money for his efforts and doesn't even have a satellite dish.

[TNGTony]

A serious pet peeve of mine....

innocent and not guilty ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE!!!!!!!

It drives me nuts when a journalists says some one plead "innocent". You CANNOT plead innocent in a court of law. The court CANNOT exhonorate you EVER. All they can determine is that there is not enough evidense to prove you are guilty. If there is not enough convincing evidence, you are not guilty. NEVER innocent. These are not legal synonyms.

A close second is "He died by an apparant heart attack". No...if a heart attack killed him it was a very REAL heart attack. "He died, apparantly from a hear attack."

Thanks for the article Steve

See ya
Tony

[Karl Foster]

Tony,

I couldn't agree more! A person that is found NOT GUILTY is not necessarily innocent of the crime. This guy must believe that the gov't doesn't have enough evidence to convict him. His innocence or guilt is irrelevent. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Mark]

I am innocent!!! Thaat was NOt Me in the camera!!
It was my EVIL Twin!! yyyyaaa thats the ticket...

[RichW]

Actually, according to law, one IS innocent until proven guilty.

Louisiana may be the only state where this is not true (because of its French heritage of law).

But Tony is quite correct. One does not plead "innocent" before a court of law.

[BoiseTiVo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TNGTony
A serious pet peeve of mine....

[b]innocent and not guilty ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE!!!!!!!

It drives me nuts when a journalists says some one plead "innocent". You CANNOT plead innocent in a court of law. The court CANNOT exhonorate you EVER. All they can determine is that there is not enough evidense to prove you are guilty. If there is not enough convincing evidence, you are not guilty. NEVER innocent. These are not legal synonyms.

Tony, the term innocent drives a lot of people crazy, but there's a good reason it's used in news reporting. (I work in radio news and handle this complaint several times a year.) The Associated Press style guide requires the use of innocent in news copy rather than not guilty.

Why?

Think how easy it is to misread, or mis-hear "not guilty" as "guilty". News material is constantly re-written by newspapers, and radio or TV stations. It can pass through several editors and writers, including possibly part-time college interns. Using the term "not guilty" is technically accurate, but it puts you three little letters away from a libel suit. Drop the "not" by accident and you've just convicted someone who was acquitted. Innocent is unambiguous, even if it's inaccurate.

I use innocent in news copy for that very reason. I may never believe O.J. was innocent, but that's what I'll say on the air... :rolleyes:

[raj2001]

I am surprised that in the days of the DMCA that this happened. The DMCA gives wide and sweeping powers and exemptions, and also makes it a felony to bypass content protection devices. I think his plea of innocent will not really matter as much.

P.S. I think this case is one of the few where the DMCA could be rightfully applied.

[Mike123abc]

If the government case is true, he clearly saw the information's value and passed it on to the internet. Even though he did not profit or even have a satellite dish does not mean he did not have a reason. He may have wanted to get even with the "big bad corporation". After all it is General Motors, the maker of the internal combustion engine.