“In the war on piracy, consumer privacy is often the first casualty. But on Monday, a federal court imposed some limits on the collateral damage content owners can inflict, blocking a satellite TV provider’s effort to subpoena the names and personal information of thousands of people who purchased ‘free-to-air’ satellite receivers that can be hacked to decrypt signals meant for paid subscribers.” A brief from EFF had argued that “Echostar’s [parent company of Dish Network’s] subpoenas were ‘especially troubling in light of past litigation’ where another satellite TV provider, DirecTV, had similarly obtained customer information in the course of a civil suit against a device manufacturer. The company then sent out 170,000 letters pressuring customers to agree to a $3,500 ‘settlement’ or face litigation.” (Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica, Oct. 1). On the earlier DirecTV litigation campaign, see posts here, here, here, and (reader letter) here.
5 Comments
Not being a lawyer maybe I’m missing the distinction but what’s the difference between this and what the RIAA is doing concerning d/l songs. They’re sending the same settlement letters if someone merely has on their computer Napster or something similar without any proof of actually doing it.
This is exactly the same thing, just because you have a box that can decrypt IP belonging to Someone, does mean that you have actually used it to decrypt that IP. So this is really no different then “Napster on your computer” = guilty position that RIAA takes. Although the precedent of the charge “possession of bugler tools” might apply.
Wasn’t the excuse / defense for napster that you could use it for legitimate file sharing of pictures, documents etc.
What would be the excuse / defense for a specially purchased electronic box whose only purpose is to decrypt satellite signals?
I think a better analogy than RIAA — napster would be someone who cuts into someone elses cable TV line or an electrical or water tie in upstream of your meter.
How about the defense “I only use it to decrypt satellite signals that I’ve paid the subscription fees for”. Some of those boxes are both cheaper and have more features then the standard Dish Box. For example many (with DVR capability) let you hang additional disks on them to greatly increase recording capacity, which Dish won’t let you do.
What would be the excuse / defense for a specially purchased electronic box whose only purpose is to decrypt satellite signals?
How about the defense that not all satellite transmissions of tv stations are encrypted to begin with?
DishNetwork / EchoStar is not the only satellite up there you know.
There are many satellites that broadcast in a simple mpeg-2 format that these receivers can receive and then be viewed.