All Chipped Cable Boxes Going Down

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by talktalkfan

I would of thought a court warrant at least would be needed..

Read the link in this post from above.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35031363-post880.html

[Felim_Doyle]

Originally Posted by Masque

Yes that will be an interesting one for them to work on cable, it is supposed to be fairly easy on SKY.

With our system though we see both the card and the box and they must match in order to work as we have to provision them with each other.

One would also hope that the system can detect two boxes or cards with the same id. active at the same time. In terms of a purely computer network, two MAC or IP addresses cannot exist simultaneously on the same network. Even pre-IPTV, there must be a parallel to this in a cable TV environment. Of course, detection of duplicate or spoofed ids. isn't possible with unicast satellite systems. Return-path strikes again!

Originally Posted by Masque

No one has cracked it in 3 years so they are taking their time.

Ah but now that Nagra3 is available on the VM network, it gives more motive, means and opportunity to those who wish to try cracking it!

Some additional points as I do my morning catch-up:-

Posts are now alternately referring to Customer Service and Card Sharing as CS.

I think the number of people who innocently buy modified cable boxes is very small or even insignificant. People who know little about technology tend to buy from a reliable source, even if it means paying full retail price. The advent of auction sites such as eBay has, perhaps, caused some people to 'buy the wrong thing' but, in the case of cable boxes, these are the ones who will innocently call VM and find out their mistake quite quickly. Yes, target the manufacturers, customisers and sellers of these 'after market' boxes (I like that! ) but almost all of the users of these boxes are guilty of, at a minimum, buying something from a suspect source that would indicate to them that it was stolen or in some way illegal or dubious at best.

VM have only just completed the merger of their disparate cable franchises and rolled out NGTV to all. This is the first real opportunity that they have had as a single entity to roll out Nagra3 across the whole network. Doing it any earlier as NTL and Telewest separately would have been more complex and more costly.

Nagravision Merlin is also known as Nagravision 3 - Now that's what I call magic!

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Felim_Doyle

One would also hope that the system can detect two boxes or cards with the same id. active at the same time. In terms of a purely computer network, two MAC or IP addresses cannot exist simultaneously on the same network. Even pre-IPTV, there must be a parallel to this in a cable TV environment. Of course, detection of duplicate or spoofed ids. isn't possible with unicast satellite systems. Return-path strikes again!

With a cardsharing client you don't need to spoof anything though. You have one "legitimate" reciever that runs the cardsharing server which decrypts the ECMs, and the rest aren't visible on the network as they don't talk back.

Satellite isn't unicast, which is a directed signal from one point to another, it's broadcast. Cable is STILL broadcast, despite the physical network and even under a full IPTV system will still be broadcast as the cable coming into your home is part of a shared branch in a tree network. That means that there will always be something on the wire that an STB can gain access to, even if it's just the same channels your neighbours are watching after a switch to SDV.

Ah but now that Nagra3 is available on the VM network, it gives more motive, means and opportunity to those who wish to try cracking it!

Not really, the UK market is relatively small compared to the European one which already uses N3. It doesn't even need to be cracked, as long as they cardsharing works then they're not going to care if it's cracked or not. Infact, people will be happy it's not because if it's cracked they profit from the upfront STB cost only, with cardsharing they can charge recurring subscriptions for access to the cardsharing server, so there's potentially more money to be made from it.

[JayAy]

Originally Posted by TheDon

... with cardsharing they can charge recurring subscriptions for access to the cardsharing server, so there's potentially more money to be made from it.

May as well sign up with VM then - at least when the service fails you know who to moan at

[talktalkfan]

Originally Posted by JayAy

May as well sign up with VM then - at least when the service fails you know who to moan at

With CS it`s usually 1/4 of the price (well on Satelite it is) which will probably sway things.

---------- Post added at 11:20 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Masque

Read the link in this post from above.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35031363-post880.html

I already have.

"(2)
No such Order shall be made unless it appears to Her Majesty that provision has been or will be made under the laws of that country or territory giving adequate protection to persons making charges for programmes included in broadcasting or cable programme services provided from the United Kingdom or, as the case may be, for encrypted transmissions sent from the United Kingdom."

So yes an order would need to be given..

Seems like you like the last say no matter how you/things look

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by talktalkfan

Seems like you like the last say no matter how you/things look

It was another poster who posted that link not me.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by talktalkfan

With CS it`s usually 1/4 of the price (well on Satelite it is) which will probably sway things.

---------- Post added at 11:20 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------



I already have.

"(2)
No such Order shall be made unless it appears to Her Majesty that provision has been or will be made under the laws of that country or territory giving adequate protection to persons making charges for programmes included in broadcasting or cable programme services provided from the United Kingdom or, as the case may be, for encrypted transmissions sent from the United Kingdom."

So yes an order would need to be given..

Seems like you like the last say no matter how you/things look

That's from an entirely different section though?

The "order" that's on about is:

(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

(a) provide that section 297 applies in relation to programmes included in services provided from a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and

(b) provide that section 298 applies in relation to such programmes and to encrypted transmissions sent from such a country or territory.

Which means that it's possible for sections 297 and 298 to apply to foreign broadcasters.

It has NOTHING to do with seizure of equipment.

[talktalkfan]

Originally Posted by Masque

It was another poster who posted that link not me.

So please explain post #888 ?

Was you not trying to tell me a court warrant wasn`t needed as thats how I read it??

Instead of trying to out word/do me please read what you have written...

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by talktalkfan

So please explain post #888 ?

Was you not trying to tell me a court warrant wasn`t needed as thats how I read it??

Instead of trying to out word/do me please read what you have written...

Post 888 is by Felim Doyle, not me

[Kymmy]

I think he meant this quote which you have to admit was quite a broad comment to make without clarification

Originally Posted by Masque

I know that our engineers can and do confiscate illegal boxes when they get called out for a fault of any type,

[TheDon]

Just to further clarify the legality on seizing anything, it's stated it's the same as seizing copyright material in section 100.

This reads:

100 Right to seize infringing copies and other articles

(1) An infringing copy of a work which is found exposed or otherwise immediately available for sale or hire, and in respect of which the copyright owner would be entitled to apply for an order under section 99, may be seized and detained by him or a person authorised by him.

The right to seize and detain is exercisable subject to the following conditions and is subject to any decision of the court under section 114.

(2) Before anything is seized under this section notice of the time and place of the proposed seizure must be given to a local police station.

(3) A person may for the purpose of exercising the right conferred by this section enter premises to which the public have access but may not seize anything in the possession, custody or control of a person at a permanent or regular place of business of his, and may not use any force.

(4) At the time when anything is seized under this section there shall be left at the place where it was seized a notice in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars as to the person by whom or on whose authority the seizure is made and the grounds on which it is made.

(5) In this section— “premises� includes land, buildings, moveable structures, vehicles, vessels, aircraft and hovercraft; and “prescribed� means prescribed by order of the Secretary of State.

(6) An order of the Secretary of State under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

That clearly states that anything that they'll be entitled to get a court order for the delivery up of, can be seized by the rights holder, OR A PERSON AUTHORISED BY HIM. Technicians would easily fall in to that category.

The first hurdle we get to is "subject to any decision of the court under section 114." does that mean you need a court order? Nope, it means that any seizure is subject to a later decision by the court under section 114.

Then we see the only qualifier on when a seizure can be made: "Before anything is seized under this section notice of the time and place of the proposed seizure must be given to a local police station." So, all you have to do is give notice to a local police station. You could easily pop out to the van, give the local station a call, and give notice that you'll be seizing the STB. That seizure is then subject to a decision by the court, where they can order the STB destroyed or if they feel it's not infringing returned to the owner.

So in short, you do not need a court order to make the seizure.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I think he meant this quote which you have to admit was quite a broad comment to make without clarification

I go with The Don's answer.

[Kymmy]

I think though paragraph 3 would stop the seizure as a house is not public access, the rule in general was brought in for seizure of materials at places like markets, car-boot sales...etc.. Where the public has access to, a house is private.. (same as a business if the person in question also owns the business)

Masque I don't understand why you keep trying to squirm your way out of the comment which in essence is an honest mistake..

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I think though paragraph 3 would stop the seizure as a house is not public access

Nope, because it doesn't state you can ONLY seize where the public has access. If you couldn't carry out the right in a domestic property it would be exempted in the same way as business premises are in that section.

the rule in general was brought in for seizure of materials at places like markets, car-boot sales...etc.. Where the public has access to, a house is private.. (same as a business if the person in question also owns the business)

Except a market or car boot qualify as "a permanent or regular place of business of his" and is actually exempted by that section so you can't seize there!

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I think though paragraph 3 would stop the seizure as a house is not public access, the rule in general was brought in for seizure of materials at places like markets, car-boot sales...etc.. Where the public has access to, a house is private.. (same as a business if the person in question also owns the business)

Masque I don't understand why you keep trying to squirm your way out of the comment which in essence is an honest mistake..

I have seen account notes where a box has been taken from the property and the account holder has ordered new boxes with much more in depth notes regarding what actually happened, of course I cannot say much more about that due to DPA.

I think I got slightly confused above with all the variations and comments.