1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Echostar sues ViewTech

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by hankmack, Jul 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 3, 2007 #101 of 239
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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?
     
  2. Aug 3, 2007 #102 of 239
    BNUMM

    BNUMM Hall Of Fame

    1,079
    0
    Dec 23, 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.
     
  3. Aug 3, 2007 #103 of 239
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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.
     
  4. Aug 4, 2007 #104 of 239
    babzog

    babzog Godfather

    273
    0
    Sep 19, 2006
    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.

    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.
     
  5. Aug 4, 2007 #105 of 239
    HDTVFanAtic

    HDTVFanAtic Banned User

    534
    0
    Jul 23, 2005

    Nope....its standard MPEG2 and MPEG4.
     
  6. Aug 4, 2007 #106 of 239
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC

    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.
     
  7. Aug 4, 2007 #107 of 239
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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?

    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.
     
  8. Aug 4, 2007 #108 of 239
    Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    3,089
    13
    Oct 27, 2004
    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?
     
  9. Aug 4, 2007 #109 of 239
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    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.
     
  10. Aug 4, 2007 #110 of 239
    FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    4
    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.
     
  11. Aug 4, 2007 #111 of 239
    Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,652
    34
    Jun 7, 2004
    You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

    "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
     
  12. Aug 4, 2007 #112 of 239
    FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    4
    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.
     
  13. Aug 4, 2007 #113 of 239
    Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,652
    34
    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."
     
  14. Aug 4, 2007 #114 of 239
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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 ...
     
  15. Aug 5, 2007 #115 of 239
    joblo

    joblo Godfather

    484
    0
    Dec 10, 2003
    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.
     
  16. Aug 5, 2007 #116 of 239
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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.
     
  17. Aug 5, 2007 #117 of 239
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    376
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC

    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.
     
  18. Aug 5, 2007 #118 of 239
    HDTVFanAtic

    HDTVFanAtic Banned User

    534
    0
    Jul 23, 2005
    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.
     
  19. Aug 5, 2007 #119 of 239
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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.
     
  20. Aug 5, 2007 #120 of 239
    HDTVFanAtic

    HDTVFanAtic Banned User

    534
    0
    Jul 23, 2005
    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.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page