Topic 'Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell' in forum 'Canadian Broadband' - dslreports.com

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:54:46 EDT

the cerberus posted : NO! that is terribly false logic.

FIRST OF ALL, admitting you didnt read the rest PROVES your ignorance.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS ISNT IT?
Just like FTA, you have to prove the ONLY purpose is for piracy.
Because the NASA channel is up there for free, FTA equipment is LEGAL to use for FTA purposes, and LEGAL to be sold because of this.
THERE IS A LEGAL PURPOSE, so then they are innocent.
I know you dont like it, but its logically the same as the "Torrents are for Pirate" bit, which to simplify, is to blame tools not the operators.

said by Get Clue :

When you start to get a clue that Canadian internet, when it started to ramp up in the 90's and continued in the early 2000's, was all based on warez and how fast you can get it, then maybe you could honestly have a conversation instead of some rant.

You are either clueless or on some pretend quest to twist history.

To make it PAINFULLY SIMPLE, a chainsaw doesnt kill people, the operator does.
The internet and protocols are tools too.
And of course you ignore the entire argument about fair use.
And that other thing that drove internet technologies and uses lots of bandwidth, charged money, sold legal video, you know, the PORN industry.

It used to be the "MP3's are for pirates" bit. your arguments are old and faulty.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:13:53 EDT

anon posted :

said by the cerberus:

No, you dont seem to understand how law works.

That's all you needed to say (I didn't read the rest).

In other words, you don't have a clue how internet was marketed to people in Canada from the 90's to the mid-2000's. And are instead ranting on.

Videotron is guilty of this.
Bell is guilty of this.
Telus is guilty of this
The whole lot of them are guilty of this.

But you want to instead say you bought your internet based on how many times you could download that weird 700+ meg birthday movie that just managed to fit on a cd by fluke. Or you bought it based on those 30 birthday song MP3's you could download in 30-minutes. Umm... ok. heh.

When you start to get a clue that Canadian internet, when it started to ramp up in the 90's and continued in the early 2000's, was all based on warez and how fast you can get it, then maybe you could honestly have a conversation instead of some rant.

You are either clueless or on some pretend quest to twist history.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:17:00 EDT

the cerberus posted : No, you dont seem to understand how law works.
Innocent until proven guilty that whole thing about giving people the benefit of the doubt.... how do you think FTA equipment is still being sold to this day?!!
You have to PROVE that its ONLY PURPOSE is for illegal use.
In other words, when Rogers and Bell were giving you the amount of MP3's and movies you can download they were GIVING YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT that you werent downloading copyright infringed material whether you like it or not that is a sound argument.

And just because online MP3 and video purchasing wasnt mainstream, doesnt mean big porn companies, smaller companies or even independent people werent selling them.

Again, whether you like it or not, it is not your call, because there WAS INDEED legal media online, your argument (that Bell and Rogers were encouraging copyright infringement) is entirely false.

Basically your entire argument is logically the same as the old "Torrents are for Pirates" bit.
You cant just demonize a protocol simply because pirates chose to use it.
Logically that means if pirates are always choosing the best protocols, then legitimate business people are not allowed to distribute their media with this (best) protocol.
This is part of what net neutrality is. Treating protocols as what they are, tools. Like a chainsaw. Its meant to cut down trees.
A chainsaw doesnt kill people, the person operating it does. Why are there chainsaws for sale? because they have legal purposes too!

Also, if you want to add another entirely sound argument you are forgetting about a little thing called fair use. I am legally allowed to share my music with my friends, it is not infringement to do so.
So if I bought a CD in the "1990-mid 2000's", ripped a few songs and sent them to my friends it was ENTIRELY FAIR USE and legal.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:07:13 EDT

anon posted : Wow someone is upset, ay?

Hate to break it to you, but when these companies were advertising how many MP3's you can download, or how many movies you could download (which happened to be the same size as and Xvid for a CD), they were not talking about you kid singing happy birthday or the homemade movie you can download 40-times of a kid blowing out her birthday cake candles.

They lured people by how many copyrights materials they could download in X-minutes. Each one trying to outdo the other.

It's time for you to start to getting a clue of what went on by ALL ISP's in Canada since the 90's to the mid 2000's.

To deny this is to deny Canadian internet history & Canadian marketing history.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:24:14 EDT

the cerberus posted :

said by Vomio:

If your friend takes the video you made and gave him to watch and puts it on YouTube and gets a scrillion hits and makes googly bucks from it.

You as the creator and automatic copyright holder can set the lawyers on him for your cut or issue a DMCA take down notice to YouTube.

You have these amazing built-in mighty legal powers that you seem to be denying. You have copyright over your creations whether you think so or not.

No need to register or even note it on the work although although either or both will make life easier and cheaper if it goes to the courts.

IANAL

Way to entirely miss the point, I said MY OWN SERVER, not Youtube!!

Really, you guys have went out of your way of the original argument which was to say that Bell and Rogers were advertising the amount of movies and music you can download before SOME legal online video and music stores existed.

Again, forget about how you think everything has a fucking copyright (again everything DOESNT, there isnt some auto-copyright in EVERY country, AND in fact crossing certain borders can REMOVE copyright), you are dodging the real issue of infringement, and not EVERYTHING you download is copyright infringement, especially if its a home movie or some original song, and the owner EXPLICITLY gives it to you.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:25:56 EDT
anon posted : You seem to recall a few things from back then. Let me test your memory....

Back in the early 2000's Videotron was sending tech out on the street to try an determine who was stealing their TV signals. Or to determine which houses were splitting the cable to get a free signal to another TV in a diff part of the house (Back then Videotron claimed it was illegal to split the cable).

So Videotron tech/reps would knock at peoples doors and claim to have authority to look at your cable hook-up.

Some people didn't know better and let the videotron tech in, which led to fines.

Other people knew their rights a bit better and told the techs to get lost.

Soon CHOM radio and CJAD were broadcasting how people have rights and shouldn't let these techs into their homes if they never called for service. And if a videotron piracy cop did come to your house just to say the owner isn't here and close the door.

So, it seems to me videotron has their own pirating problem that they couldn't fix.

You from the MTL or South Shore area? Do you recall this? Seems almost like yesterday to me.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:01:17 EDT
telco_mtl posted :
said by No Foul :
So I guess you don't agree that each and every Quebec resident would have bought a $860,000/month TV service from videotron...

;)

why would they with all the houses that cancelled videotron, yet videotron never disconnected, or disconnected at the protector where anyone could easily plug themselves back in?

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 23:24:40 EDT
anon posted : So I guess you don't agree that each and every Quebec resident would have bought a $860,000/month TV service from videotron...

;)

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 18:13:55 EDT
telco_mtl posted :
said by er ummm :
said by telco_mtl:
your numbers are off, dont forget that videotron isnt the only cable company in quebec, cablevision, derytel and cogego have huge territories.

It was meant to be off, in case you missed it.

After all we all know 400-million dollars is what Videotron lost in sales since they are the sole provider in Quebec.

Reads like an RIAA lawsuit, doesn't it?

my bad didnt see your sarcasm :) no harm no foul

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:06:02 EDT
anon posted :
said by telco_mtl:
your numbers are off, dont forget that videotron isnt the only cable company in quebec, cablevision, derytel and cogego have huge territories.

It was meant to be off, in case you missed it.

After all we all know 400-million dollars is what Videotron lost in sales since they are the sole provider in Quebec.

Reads like an RIAA lawsuit, doesn't it?

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:11:09 EDT
telco_mtl posted :
said by Reasonable :
said by kovy:
387 millions

In 2003 the pop of Quebec was a little less than 7.5 million.

So that works out to 51.6 million dollars per person over X-years.

How long has the pirating gone on for (subtracting when the pirating stopped for videotron). 2 years or so, if that? Let's put it at 5 just for sake of argument.

That's 10.32 million dollars per person for 5 years since we know that every single person in Quebec would have gone with Videotron.

So each and every person in Quebec, if Bell wasn't around, would have paid 10.32 million dollars a year to watch Videotron TV. Or $860,000/month.

Sounds reasonable...

your numbers are off, dont forget that videotron isnt the only cable company in quebec, cablevision, derytel and cogego have huge territories.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:27:28 EDT
anon posted :
said by kovy:
387 millions

In 2003 the pop of Quebec was a little less than 7.5 million.

So that works out to 51.6 million dollars per person over X-years.

How long has the pirating gone on for (subtracting when the pirating stopped for videotron). 2 years or so, if that? Let's put it at 5 just for sake of argument.

That's 10.32 million dollars per person for 5 years since we know that every single person in Quebec would have gone with Videotron.

So each and every person in Quebec, if Bell wasn't around, would have paid 10.32 million dollars a year to watch Videotron TV. Or $860,000/month.

Sounds reasonable...

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:29:15 EDT
kovy posted :
said by Shrug :
Up to bell to challenge this...

But let's face it. Pay a million and walk away, or pay a few million to fight it...

Videotron says they themselves may appeal the verdict (although they won) because they want compensation in the tens of millions of dollars. Or was it hundreds of millions? They aren't happy with a million.

387 millions

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:01:03 EDT
Vomio posted : If your friend takes the video you made and gave him to watch and puts it on YouTube and gets a scrillion hits and makes googly bucks from it.

You as the creator and automatic copyright holder can set the lawyers on him for your cut or issue a DMCA take down notice to YouTube.

You have these amazing built-in mighty legal powers that you seem to be denying. You have copyright over your creations whether you think so or not.

No need to register or even note it on the work although although either or both will make life easier and cheaper if it goes to the courts.

IANAL

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:02:46 EDT
the cerberus posted : thats terrible misinformation, what i meant was, if i make an original creation of my own and i dont have to put a copyright on it, sorry but that was implied. if its mine and i made it and its entirely original and i give it to my friends this is perfectly legal with no copyright.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:46:10 EDT
anon posted : Might want to understand what the copyright laws actually say... Your examples are weak and not to the point.

>Look I can record a song, a home movie, anyone can.

That does not mean that the original content creators doesn't have copyright of their material. They'll still have their copyright.

It just mean as a "user", you have certain rights under the "fair dealing". Once you step outside of that (e.g. selling your home made copies on the streets), they can go after you.

Also the current copyright laws is a bit strange in Canada. You are allowed to make a copy for yourself or to lend your friends your CD/DVD collection and let them copy it themselves. What is not allowed is for you to make a copy and give it to them. So you have actually broken the law in your example.

Whether it is enforceable or not is another matter, but to say copyright doesn't exist is wrong here.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:40:34 EDT
Vomio posted : Ott_Cable is right at least within countries that honour the Berne Convention.

Copyright is automatic you don't have to apply for it, although having a registered copyright may make enforcement easier.

Recommended reading:
»www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:10:09 EDT
the cerberus posted :
said by Ott_Cable :
>Do you think EVERYTHING has a copyright?

Almost everything you typed or "created" have automatic copyright by default. Everything you and I typed here on DSLr are copyrighted by us the "authors" and "licensed" for DSLr to display/stored on their website.

FYI ToS for DSLr:
>dslreports.com users authorize dslreports.com to use, reproduce, transmit, store and display any user-supplied content (including message board postings and replies) for any purpose in any and all media.

That is a very dumb argument.
Look I can record a song, a home movie, anyone can. then I burn it to cd or dvd or bluray or give it to my friend off my server, that doesnt have a fucking copyright.
I think MOST PEOPLE know that when uploading to SOMEONE ELSES server things arent theres anymore, ever since that WHOLE BIG FIASCO with FACEBOOK when they tried to say they own everyones photos (which they do not because of public backlash).

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:04:15 EDT
anon posted : >Do you think EVERYTHING has a copyright?

Almost everything you typed or "created" have automatic copyright by default. Everything you and I typed here on DSLr are copyrighted by us the "authors" and "licensed" for DSLr to display/stored on their website.

FYI ToS for DSLr:
>dslreports.com users authorize dslreports.com to use, reproduce, transmit, store and display any user-supplied content (including message board postings and replies) for any purpose in any and all media.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:55:45 EDT
the cerberus posted :
said by Of Course :
Everyone did/does this. Of course.

Bell, telus, videotron all advertized speed and B/W by how many movies and MP3's you could download before a legal method of music and movie downloads was even available to the people of Canada.

Of course it's unjust. Of course videotron itself is guilty of this.

The whole thing is a joke.

But... videotron/Quebecor didn't like losing the piracy war.

Do you think EVERYTHING has a copyright?
They give you the benefit of the doubt that what you are downloading isnt infringed material/is fair use.
Just like FTA, you give the consumer the benefit of the doubt they are using it for legal purposes and not decrypting.

There seems to be some false assumption that these providers are guilty because SOMEONE ELSE hacked them/leaked key info.

said by Ott_Cable :
Would this also have some interesting implications for the new copyright laws if the content is published on DVD/BD etc that use weak digital locks? Can the DVD, BD associations be sued?

Exactly.
Why would companies be at fault because their vendors shitty encryption was hacked?

This whole thing is stupid, Bell PAYED MONEY for an encryption (Nagravision), Bell PAYED MONEY and used ECM's, Bell PAYED MONEY to sue hackers and the people who run ca servers and WON MONEY. Bell PAYED MONEY to sue anyone selling pre-modified equipment.
Bell MADE AN EFFORT to secure the streams. Bell DID NOT have unencrypted streams, but quite frankly how the hell does Videotron or the court have authority to say you need to? Its Bell that loses money and its Bell that sues to get it back

THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF BIG GAME PUBLISHERS (LIKE EA) SUING INDY DEVS FOR NOT USING DRM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OR THE MPAA/SOME BIG COMEDY CORPERATION POTENTIALLY SUING LOUIE CK FOR DISTRIBUTING HIS COMEDY SHOWS WITHOUT DRM
Its very very very scary that you can win this type of case in Canada.

The other thing to think about is HOW can Bell sue the hackers/ca server operators and win if bell is at fault for the signal being unsecure?

Logically these 2 things cannot happen, its either Bells fault or the people stealing/providing a way to steal Bell that are at fault. IT CANNOT BE BOTH.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:39:28 EDT
anon posted : Up to bell to challenge this...

But let's face it. Pay a million and walk away, or pay a few million to fight it...

Videotron says they themselves may appeal the verdict (although they won) because they want compensation in the tens of millions of dollars. Or was it hundreds of millions? They aren't happy with a million.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:59:16 EDT
anon posted : Does that mean the court also see that the "pipe" that uses unsecured or known broken method for content delivery is responsible some what?

Would this also have some interesting implications for the new copyright laws if the content is published on DVD/BD etc that use weak digital locks? Can the DVD, BD associations be sued?

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:19:01 EDT
anon posted : Everyone did/does this. Of course.

Bell, telus, videotron all advertized speed and B/W by how many movies and MP3's you could download before a legal method of music and movie downloads was even available to the people of Canada.

Of course it's unjust. Of course videotron itself is guilty of this.

The whole thing is a joke.

But... videotron/Quebecor didn't like losing the piracy war.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:15:26 EDT
Vomio posted : The more I think about this, the more I believe that the ruling is unjust.
It is after all standard practice in some circles to get people hooked.

Microsoft used this approach:
»articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09···opiracy9

You don't see Apple, IBM or FSF coming after them.........yet.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:34:09 EDT
anon posted : More on this from Quebecor Media:
»cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012···036.html

bits n pieces...

“It cannot be disputed that Bell ExpressVu was well aware that this was happening and that damages were being caused as a direct and immediate consequence of its failure to adequately secure its signal,” Silcoff wrote in his decision. ...

“This apparent ignorance ... and failure to respond to the situation resulted in a dramatic and exponential increase of the piracy level in 2002, and subsequently from 2003 until early in 2005,” Silcoff wrote. ...

“We are glad to see the Superior Court condemn Bell for resorting to illegal means that weaken its competitors and for having failed to meet its obligations to protect rather than undermine the integrity of the Quebec and Canadian broadcasting sector,” said Pierre Karl Péladeau, president and CEO of Quebecor, Quebecor Media and Sun Media Corp.

“Unfortunately, we once again find that Bell is willing to use any means necessary to reach its ends and put more money in its pocket,” Péladeau said. “It appears inconceivable that a company that benefited for decades from being a monopoly could have resorted to practices so detrimental to the rest of the broadcasting industry as to be condemned by law.” ...

Quebecor also condemned the fact, outlined in Tuesday’s judgment, that senior Bell managers knowingly communicated false data to the CRTC related to the piracy rate of its TV distribution system, while knowing full well the true extent of the problem.

“We must deplore such a lack of respect towards the laws and institutions that are supposed to protect our broadcasting system,” Péladeau said. “We wish for the CRTC to look into this matter and to take all appropriate measures under the circumstances.”

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:32:48 EDT
Gone posted : Yeah a friend of mine still does IKS. I don't do it for the same reasons you already described. My Shaw Direct account is also for the wife. It were up to me I'd put an antenna up on the roof and just watch off-air television. As it stands right now I can get everything out of the US with just a pair of rabbit ears so I'm pretty well covered.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:28:41 EDT
Vomio posted : It's still pretty easy if you want to play pirate.
IKS is fairly cheap, servers are off-shore, the folks from the US usually watch Bell and Canadians watch Dish.

There are of course still the grey market activities too, but that tends to be just cross border friends and relatives supplying a billing address these days.

At the present time it would appear the cost/benefit ratio is too high to bother to stamp out cross border viewers.

I have a Shaw dish and subscription for the spouse.
It would be a cold day in Hell before I went with Rogers, and Bell is Bhell.

I have a motorized dish for my personal geekatainment, grabbing unencrypted broadcasts and feeds.

One of these days I might really upset the neighbours and stick up a tower for OTA.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:09:12 EDT
anon posted : Yup.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:43:58 EDT
Gone posted :
said by the cerberus:
LOL those dishes are not just in memory, most of the hardware works for FTA, Bell and Dish Network and so it is being reused.
When DirecTV stopped working, what do you think I used my DirecTV dish for? :D Those adapters to mount a second LNB to those dishes were very popular for a while. I have two Bell dishes with two LNBs sitting on my basement floor. When I moved to my last place I never bothered to put them back up, and shortly after public card sharing pretty much disappeared.

said by the cerberus:
Are you that daft to think a card change somehow stopped piracy?
Like I said above every subscription tv ca can be shared online, and no provider can stop it so far....
Yup, it's still out there. It's just not the free for all it once was.

I had an original Nfusion, too. Those were the days...

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:38:34 EDT
the cerberus posted :
said by Gone:
said by milnoc:
I didn't say it was impossible. But over the years, the most hacked system was Nagravision, simply because it was the easier system to hack. Pirates usually prefer to go down the quickest and easiest path to fame and fortune.
Bullshit. DirecTV was just as easy to hack, and was done *years* before Dish and BEV were. You still see plenty of DirecTV dishes on people's roofs in memory of those days.

LOL those dishes are not just in memory, most of the hardware works for FTA, Bell and Dish Network and so it is being reused.

I agree, neither satellite provider was easier to hack than the other, and both happened due to leaks.

None of this can be blamed on the provider for choosing the wrong encryption vendor, its entirely the vendor/hacker/leaker who is at fault.

said by hmm :
Videotron fixed theirs lickity-split. Bell giggled as they not only had the market for the most basic services with hacked and free channels, but they also knew people went to their boxes because the prices was affordable. 50$ versus 200$.

The whole market was based on piracy, Videotron lost.

Again, and I dont know why I am repeating this because you clearly arent listening, Bell did not just giggle, neither did Dish Network or DirectTV, every provider chose a path of ECM's before swapping out cards. STANDARD PROCEDURE!!!
They PAYED Nagra for the encryption and so "support" was given in the form of ECM's until the Nagra3 card was ready to be deployed.

DirectTV had to spend a ton of money switching card vendors and receivers entirely. Thats the only reason they got out earlier.

said by hmm :
But once bell was forced to upgrade the cards, people saw zero value in BeV. It just wasn't worth it, and switched to videotron.

Are you that daft to think a card change somehow stopped piracy?

Like I said above every subscription tv ca can be shared online, and no provider can stop it so far....

Ca sharing is arguably better than hacked cards or emu.
Emu needed to be patched with every ECM and hacked cards just got zapped every once in a while.
With ca sharing, the server is in charge of all the work, and the client just sits back and watches tv, so no bin flashing or card blocking/reprogramming needed. Its arguably better than ever before.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:15:36 EDT
Gone posted :
said by milnoc:
I didn't say it was impossible. But over the years, the most hacked system was Nagravision, simply because it was the easier system to hack. Pirates usually prefer to go down the quickest and easiest path to fame and fortune.
Bullshit. DirecTV was just as easy to hack, and was done *years* before Dish and BEV were. You still see plenty of DirecTV dishes on people's roofs in memory of those days.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:20:36 EDT
milnoc posted :
said by Gone:
*coughHcardHUcardcough*

I didn't say it was impossible. But over the years, the most hacked system was Nagravision, simply because it was the easier system to hack. Pirates usually prefer to go down the quickest and easiest path to fame and fortune.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:36:36 EDT
anon posted :
said by elwoodblues:
It was never about the money, it was about making a point and they did.

Well, Videotron was hacked as well during that time. but it was more of a bitch to fix, and it cost more.

Example: If you wern't bright enough to download a rom on your own someone would do your Bell card (or Jtag, or whatever) for 25-50$.

To do a videotron one, it was 200$. It was more involved.

Videotron fixed theirs lickity-split. Bell giggled as they not only had the market for the most basic services with hacked and free channels, but they also knew people went to their boxes because the prices was affordable. 50$ versus 200$.

The whole market was based on piracy, Videotron lost.

But once bell was forced to upgrade the cards, people saw zero value in BeV. It just wasn't worth it, and switched to videotron.

Piracy is bad kids. Don't do it. ;)

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:10:24 EDT
elwoodblues posted : It was never about the money, it was about making a point and they did.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:49:04 EDT
Spike posted : Regardless, most people don't care about hacking satellite TV anymore, hence why its not as common as it used to be.
All the good device hackers are long gone or have careers and others have taken to jailbreaking video game consoles and smartphones.

The internet makes it far easier for someone to get whatever they want and when they want it.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:48:54 EDT
zorxd posted : Quebecor only gets 1M$ so can we really call this a victory?

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:45:05 EDT
Spike posted :
said by Gone:
said by milnoc:
That's why DirectTV was rarely hacked.
*coughHcardHUcardcough*

IIRC someone leaked the details of the DirecTV encryption system internally as well... I believe they got jailed for it

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:32:48 EDT
Gone posted :
said by milnoc:
That's why DirectTV was rarely hacked.
*coughHcardHUcardcough*

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:18:21 EDT
El Quintron posted :
said by milnoc:
Except that this was Nagravision, one of the weakest satellite encryption schemes in existence. That's why DirectTV was rarely hacked. It was just so much easier to use Dish equipment, almost as if Nagravision wasn't even considered proper encryption at all.

A bit more information regarding this can be found here:

»www.wired.com/politics/security/···Page=all

quote:
Christopher Tarnovsky feels vindicated. The software engineer and former satellite-TV pirate has been on the hot seat for five years, accused of helping his former employer, a Rupert Murdoch company, sabotage a rival to gain the top spot in the global pay-TV wars.

But two weeks ago a jury in the civil lawsuit against that employer, NDS Group, largely cleared the company -- and by extension Tarnovsky -- of piracy, finding NDS guilty of only a single incident of stealing satellite signals, for which Dish was awarded $1,500 in damages.

It's an extensive read, but basically, it states that Dish/Echo's main rivals assisted in hacking to weaken Dish.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:44:47 EDT
the cerberus posted :
said by milnoc:
said by the cerberus:
They did use NagraVision, so they can't possibly say they didnt attempt to secure their signal.
Except that this was Nagravision, one of the weakest satellite encryption schemes in existence. That's why DirectTV was rarely hacked. It was just so much easier to use Dish equipment, almost as if Nagravision wasn't even considered proper encryption at all.

Not really, key information about Nagravision was forced out/leaked that lead to cracks. It wasnt any specific providers fault.

Heres the story

There was a court case in Europe and in court, it was required as evidence, to provide some key information about how nagravision 2 worked in scrambling and securing the broadcasts.

The programmers of Nagravision 2 were told they had to comply and reveal how their system worked basically.

That is how Nagravision 2 became public knowledge and lead to the birth of all the companies that made "free TV" receivers.
Bell was caught in the middle of this so Nagra offered ECM's as support while they worked on the new ca, Nagravision3.

As for DirectTV they were hacked for a long time, what made it "end" was spending millions on a vendor switch which involved a card change and new receivers.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:29:21 EDT
milnoc posted :
said by the cerberus:
They did use NagraVision, so they can't possibly say they didnt attempt to secure their signal.
Except that this was Nagravision, one of the weakest satellite encryption schemes in existence. That's why DirectTV was rarely hacked. It was just so much easier to use Dish equipment, almost as if Nagravision wasn't even considered proper encryption at all.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:15:12 EDT
the cerberus posted :
said by hmm :
It took only a download to fix whatever Bell tried to do. Everyone was using free BeV.

I still have the old boxes & old cards some place in the shed next to the dish.

Once they finally frigged people, people got rid of their basic package and went elsewhere. BeV wasn't worth keeping w/o all the free channels. Even Bell knew this.

But every provider that was using Nagra1 and 2 at the time, ECM was standard procedure Nagra gave as "support" for their product, then every provider had to switch to 3 when "support" ended.

I would argue Nagra was at fault or whoever they are suing for hacking their cards in the first place.

If you actually look into the history, Bell just purchased this Dish Network Canada, and this Nagra thing wasnt even their choice in the first place.

Bell encrypted their streams, Dish Network chose the vendor Nagra, and every provider follows whatever the vendor says, unless they want to spend millions on new cards/and possibly receivers.

Currently the Nagra3 card isnt hacked, but like every subscription ca card, it can be shared, and things like this arent going to stop.

Maybe it will be hacked, maybe whatever encryption Rogers or Shaw Direct uses will be hacked, but its hardly the providers fault when these things happen.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:30:05 EDT
HiVolt posted : Haha, this is hilarious...

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:18:00 EDT
anon posted : It took only a download to fix whatever Bell tried to do. Everyone was using free BeV.

I still have the old boxes & old cards some place in the shed next to the dish.

Once they finally frigged people, people got rid of their basic package and went elsewhere. BeV wasn't worth keeping w/o all the free channels. Even Bell knew this.

Re: Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:41:10 EDT
the cerberus posted : Not that I like Bell or anything, but this is just illogical, its not Bell's fault Nagra got hacked, and they did change cards 2 times after trying ECM's (Electronic Counter Measures) on NagraVision 1 and 2.

said by Globe and Mail :
Bell TV failed 10 years ago to put in place measures to prevent aspects of the illegal decoding of its satellite signals despite its knowledge of the activities and its ability to put a stop to them.
Bell TV didnt exist 10 years ago, it was Bell ExpressVu and Dish Network Canada before that.

I'm not sure if this is Globe and Mails fault or the courts but decoding has nothing to do with this, its decrypting that's the issue.
In other words the issue is not DVB-S (the encoding), the issue is with NagraVision (the encryption).
"Illegal decoding" is just plain laughable. :D :D It just goes to show these people dont understand what they are reporting about.

They did use NagraVision, so they can't possibly say they didnt attempt to secure their signal.

They never made piracy easy either.

Making piracy easy would not involve investing in NagraVision and ECMs.

I guess they just didnt have the lawyers to fight this one.

Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:33:34 EDT
anon posted : Quebecor wins court ruling over Bell
»www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o···4439409/

In other words, Bell encouraged sat users to pirate signals and thus prevented churn/loss to the competition.

PKP states:
“We are glad to see the Superior Court condemn Bell for resorting to illegal means that weaken its competitors and for having failed to meet its obligations to protect rather than undermine the integrity of the Quebec and Canadian broadcasting sector,”

heh corporate sponsored & encouraged piracy.

It really did suck when Bell fixed that up. I had free sat for many years.