Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleDISH Network sues Henderson men over alleged piracy
Monday, June 21, 2010 | 9:05 a.m.
DISH Network LLC is suing two Henderson businessmen, charging their company is engaging in satellite television piracy by selling systems that enable users to watch DISH Network programming for free.
DISH Network, based in Englewood, Colo., filed suit in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas last week against Michael Cho, Jason Cho and their company Mamertine Inc., which does business as NFusion.
DISH Network, along with associated companies EchoStar Technologies LLC and NagraStar LLC, say in the suit that Mamertine and NFusion, based in Tulsa, Okla., and the Chos "are satellite pirates who distribute devices that enable consumers to illegally intercept and decrypt DISH Network's pay-television programming without authorization and without payment of a subscription fee."
While cable and satellite TV theft has been a long-running problem, DISH Network says in the suit that the Chos have developed a new method of stealing programming called "internet key sharing" or IKS. This involves connecting an NFusion satellite TV receiver to the Internet to obtain the keys needed to decrypt the DISH Network programming, the lawsuit says.
Officials at Mamertine could not be located for comment. A request for comment on the allegations was placed with an attorney who last year represented Mamertine in unrelated litigation in federal court in Green Bay, Wisc., with satellite TV box distributor Infinity Systems LLC.
A contract introduced in that case said NFusion was in the process of procuring patent or trademark protection for its invention that involved production of receivers able to intercept satellite transmissions and to allow customers access to more than 800 channels on a fixed-fee basis.
Nfusion was also working on plans for a computer service through television sets, the contract said.
DISH Network, which boasts more than 14 million customers, alleges in the suit violations of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the Communications Act of 1934 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Las Vegas traffic stop leads to ‘Suge’ Knight’s arrest
- Judge: Cops won’t be barred from trial involving Metro officer’s slaying
- Nick Diaz tests positive for marijuana at UFC 143
- After $500 offer from ‘Pawn Stars,’ charity nets $12,000 for movie script
- Okada gets favorable ruling in case against Wynn Resorts
- Lawmaker: ‘Illegal immigrants bilked $4.2 billion from the U.S. taxpayers’
- Vermillion drops lawsuit against Sisolak, county
- Strip casinos post 5.1 percent boost in winnings during 2011
- Hard-hit Nevada agrees to take foreclosure deal
- Critics call foreclosure settlement ‘a slap in face’
Blogs
Elsewhere
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Kats Report
A sophisticated look at line-moving and dog-show handicapping from Wynn's Johnny Avello
Elsewhere
Update 2: Caesars IPO pricing delayed due to "glitch" - underwriter
The Kats Report
A party replete with Carrot Top, 'AGT' contestants, a couple of Blue Men, deep-fried Oreos ... oh, and the Super Bowl (2 Comments)
High School Sports Scene
High School Hoops Picks: Week 7 (1 Comment)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
If Dish Net and Direct TV did not charge so much people would not have to do this. $10 to watch something in HD (Sporting event) And they wonder why people are doing this. In this economy the cost of Direct TV has gone up $12+ in the last four years or less. Yet they never add any new channels just info channels. Must be 100 of them throughout there system.
@kansasguy - are you kidding? TV is optional - you don't need it to live. Just because it's expensive doesn't give anyone the right to steal it. With that logic, people should be stealing cars, TVs and anything else they can't afford. Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with society.
Sorry but thieves are thieves. They stole when the rates were much lower too. The excuse that current rates justify stealing is just plain STUPID.
@roblarosa
Agreed. It costs money to produce and distribute content you watch on TV, and while some of the cost is offset by advertising revenue, most of it gets paid for by subscription fees. Theft is theft is theft. And they broke the law.
@cinderelladream
I don't think you quite understand the properties of the ElectroMagnetic Spectrum, let alone the concept of radiation. Sunlight is more damaging than any transmitter tower around here when it comes to skin burns and cancer development, let alone satellite transmissions. And still we're not counting naturally occurring Radon in the ground, under your house. And as far as "disturbing" the "radio spectrum", and whatever you mean by that non-sensical statement, sunspots cause larger bursts of electromagnetic radiation than we could ever generate.
Keep the signals out of my house!
.
cinderelladream --You're probably one of those level headed folks who think that the cable/satellite companies can watch you through the converter and see what you're doing at home.
Should be an interesting case.
If you don't want people using your service, stop sending the signal to their home.
I understand that it's not that simplistic, but still compelling nevertheless.
dinderelladream is right! Keep your signal out of my children!
Perspective; agents of the government continuously intercept/monitor "personal" phone conversations and email transmissions throughout the world without consumer permission, knowledge or the potential ramifications of being persecuted.
FWIW: There are FTA (free to air) video transmissions available to consumers as well as Ku band direct feed and programming signals.
Opinion; what's transmitted through un-owned space is fair game to anyone's interception and personal usage.
Video media providers routinely charge consumers' (IMO unfairly) with content they cannot interpret (foreign languages), content they do not want (commercials) and programming (channels) they do not use -- all equating to price "gouging" of consumers.
I foresee in the future the vast majority of content utilized by consumers will eventually be received through streaming video via the Internet.
: {
@cinderelladream
No, you are wrong. There have been precedents already in dealing with wireless communications that proves that this is indeed theft. The signal that is being sent out is encrypted. That means that unless a person has been granted access by way of a password and/or device that decrypts the data being transmitted in order to Authorize access to said content, it is in fact theft of service.
The prime example of this that set the standard is bandwidth theft of Wireless Access Points. Example: If you have a Wireless Router in your home for your computer system that requires a password, you are denying access for strangers to consume your bandwidth, as well as your other Network Resources such as the private contents of your Hard Drive. If however you run one fully open that does NOT require any password, then you have granted full legal permissions to anyone who joins your network. Anything they copy off of your Hard Drive is not theft, and you are liable to your ISP for subletting/reselling, albeit for free, your internet access to another user. The reason being is the TCP/IP protocal that involves the "handshake" procedure. Asking for an IP Address is a legal action of asking for permission to join your network, just the same as if that person asked for permission to come into your house. If you grant permission, it's not Tresspassing. Be it access to your home, or your computer equipment.
Equate this to the act that the Satellite Provider is sending an encrypted data signal that you can pick up on with the appropriate equipment. The fact that you cannot access that signal without their permission is the legal action of denying you access to their content. Once you "hack" into the resources that you are actively being denied access to by way of offering a password that you do not have permission to use, it then becomes illegal. Given the fact that we are also dealing with a tangible service, be it bandwidth or content, the information that you are receiving is an illegal reception, and it is therefore theft.
Furthermore you do not own nor have any permissions to utilize nor regulate any part of the licensed ElectroMagnetic Spectrum that these services transmit across. Much like "Mineral Rights" or "Water Rights" that govern the ownership of what lies beneath in the soil below us, so does the U.S. Government own the rights for usable frequencies of the ElectroMagnetic Spectrum as the apply to Communications. That of course is where the FCC comes in. So no, if an RF signal comes onto the land that you own, the company transmitting the signal doesn't automatically relinquish ownership over to you. The Government OWNS those frequencies, and through the issuance of licenses has granted them the Legal "Right Of Way" to enter your property. Just the same as if you had a telephone pole in your yard, and a lineman had to cross your property to get access to it, you can't legally deny them access.
@cinderelladream
The law is the law. Just because you don't agree with a law, and just because you can break a law doesn't invalidate it.
I know it's hard to concede that you're wrong, but you can do it.
I pay a monthly bill to DirecTV for TV channels. I pay AT&T for internet and telephone service. It's called honesty. They are not "beaming the signal to my house". The dish on the house picks it up off of the satellite. Cable/satellite TV theft is theft, plain and simple.
Harley, roblarosa -- what you guys said!
I've been without a TV for going on two years. I have no use for popular media at all -- it sucks one into the herd.
"The law is the law. Just because you don't agree with a law, and just because you can break a law doesn't invalidate it."
DMCVegas -- you showed here you know nothing about law or this republic, but you do seem to favor a police state.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H Tiffany (1819)
I'd like to sue dish for adding $2.00 on my bill without informing me. I'd like to sue them for not responding to my e-mail asking why they didn't tell me. What a company of hypocrites.
cinderelladream -- ??
@KillerB
Quoting things out of context, nor attempting character assassination against me doesn't invalidate a single thing that I've said. And the fact that you would rather attack me than construct a talking point to prove me wrong futher reinforces this. Especially since you've don't have any arguing points. But please, do go on attempt to prove me wrong. Cite a something tangible. please.
Thomas Jefferson of course in that statement is referring to the Bill of Rights as they apply to the basic concepts of humanity. It is not a Communist manifesto that that says we are entitled to whatever we choose, and are free to take it from whoever, or whatever we like.
Also, I must say that I greatly appriciate how much of a hypocrite you truly are with this gem of a quote: " I have no use for popular media at all -- it sucks one into the herd."
Really? If you've no use for popular media, then why exactly are you participating in an online discussion for a newspaper? You seem to have more than a use, if not a specific need for it in order to vent your frustrations at the world. And you've been without TV for 2 years. Ok, what exactly is that supposed to prove?
We used to be a nation of laws. Especially with gen x and y we are a nation of suggestions. The big difference between a modern country and a third world piece of garbage is that modern countries guarantee property rights. Without those rights anyone could steal your property, car, satellite feeds, or whatever and get away with it. Without those rights no reputable company would invest in your country let alone develop anything that would benefit that country. A patent is an exclusive property right for a certain amount of time. How many companies would spend hundreds of millions developing miracle drugs, without patent protection, if a competitor could copy it for free? None. If you think property rights are so bad go Somalia or Zimbabwa where those rights are non existant. Make sure you have a round trip ticket cause the wake up call your gonna get won't be pretty.
DMCVegas -- opinions vary.
"We used to be a nation of laws....."
odeman -- you also don't seem to understand laws or what makes them valid in this republic. That Jefferson quote above puts that in perspective. Your simplistic view ignores far too much to correct here -- let's just say if you put something in the public right of way (like the air) for all to access, then leave it unattended, it's going to be accessed, no matter how many signs you put up.
"...how little does the common herd know of the nature of right and truth." - Socrates in Plato's "Euthyphro" (399 B.C.E.?)
People come together to form a social contract for government because anarchy is not an effective form of rule. Like any contract it is only as good as the will of the people who are subject to it. Unfortunately most folks now don't understand the reasons behind and benefits of social contract theory and its importance. Soon enough they may experience the consequences of lawlessness. Karma doesn't discriminate but it sometimes takes a little time to do its job. Be patient you'll all get what's coming to you, good or bad.
>If however you run one fully open
>that does NOT require any password,
>then you have granted full legal
>permissions to anyone who joins your
>network. Anything they copy off of >your Hard Drive is not theft, and >you are liable to your ISP for
>subletting/reselling, albeit for
>free, your internet access to
>another user.
If I leave my front door unlocked have I also "granted full legal permissions to anyone who joins [enters my home]. Anything they [steal out of my living room including the actual computer] is not theft[...]?
Idiot!
@AndyS
No, that is not the same scenario whatsoever. Furthermore your exact scenario has also been used time, and time again in order to further prove my point.
In the case of if you left a door to you home either unlocked, or physically open, there is still no permission given to grant access to anything inside of the home, and it is understood that a person would be trespasing because since this is considered a private residence, it is naturally assumed that permission is not given.
With a Wireless Access Point on a Network running the common TCP/IP Protocal (be it the common IPV4, or rare IPV6), a computer must obtain a valid IP Address in order to gain access. If no security measures are configured, than the PERMISSIONS are defaulted to say that anyone and/or device who/that requests an IP Address will be granted one. If a password is requested, then one must be provided, and it is assumed that only individuals who have said password should be the ones who are granted access by you. That is where things are different.
If I ASK you for PERMISSION to gain access to your home and everything inside of it, and you GRANT me PERMISSION to enter your property and use whatever I want, then no crime has been committed because YOU GAVE PERMISSION for access and to do whatever I want. The same EXACT thing is occurring with a wireless network when you give full access. MY computer acting on MY BEHALF asks YOUR Wireless Router, acting on YOUR BEHALF to gain access. You, by virture of the security settings on your router in turn grant me full legal access to your network and resources, including but not limited to bandwidth, any connected devices that do not require a password, and all stored content that is available to me. The obtaining of the IP Address is where LEGAL PERMISSION is obtained by a third-party user, and LEGAL CULPABILITY is then assumed by YOU.
I'll give you a better scenario than yours to prove my point of where one of your neighbors is a terrorist, or perhaps even a child pornographer. You leave your network open, and they use your Internet connection to maintain communications and activities with other criminals, and even store content on your hard drive in order to hide data from law enfocement. In a scenario such as that, it is entirely possible that YOU could be brought up on charges for aiding terrorisim, or aiding in the distribution of child pornography, because you GAVE permission to to these people to use your Network Resources.
Also, don't revert to name-calling simply because you're angry about that fact that you cannot grasp technology and how it applies to legal concepts.
cinderelladream:
I have the perfect solution....make rabbit ears out of foil...duck tape them to your head 24/7....you will block all in coming xrays...zapping rays or whatever else you fear. Just don't stand within 1/4 mile of my home...cause you'll interfere with my HD.
Funny how when I happened to drive by the Housing Authority Projects almost all of them had a dish on their balcony. Sooooo they can't afford to pay NORMAL rent, they get low subsidized rent YET they have DISH tv. What's wrong with this picture? Stealing is stealing, period! No excuses. I hope they hang 'em high! As for Cinderelladream...well, you're living in a dream!
Dish Network there is a confused company I verbally agreed to a one year deal for $42.99 cents per month. Dish Network said they would throw in 90 day of free Sho and HBO. Every month Dish Network over billed us , fifty, one hundred, thirty dollars. I would call, email put letters in our bill but they were never able to correct the billing. When the year was up I cancelled Dish Network and three months later we get a letter that states we don't owe them anything. .....No kidding I have twelve cancelled checks and you lost a customer.
I then went to Fios Verizon triple play bundle they told me I could have one year of free Sho and Encore, telephone and internet for 99.00 with no increases for the full two years.... well the bill is 118.00 and we are not getting the free movie channels...... so me and a lot of other people just like me are being taken advantage of by these large companies that say anything to get you to sign up
$99 deals don't include taxes and fees. It helps if one understands what the bill will look like before you agree to sign up.
If you see a car advertised at $30,000, that doesn't include taxes, etc. Same for cable and phone deals.
It's just ignorant to believe that large companies "say anything to get you to sign up".
I can't believe you people...
Get a life.
Wrong when I sign a contract or agree to anything it is the complete price out the door all taxes licenses and fees included. How much is the Check I am going to have to write ? ... The problem is not with the purchaser it is with the sales people that promise more than they can deliver. Yes and when you buy a car make a cash offer and that includes taxes license and all fees .... But be careful they will take offers for much less than you think... Better have the money in the bank
cinderelladream - go take your meds.
If your signal bleeds into my house you are trespassing. If I do not have to leave my house to get it, it isn't stealing, period.
I am located in Canada and could technically legally watch Dish Network for free using a hacked FTA box as there are no Canadian laws preventing this. This is ironic because if I wanted to pay for the service I am actually breaking the law as I would have to use a US address which is illegal. My point is stealing is stealing and you will get caught eventually. In my opinion FTA is a bunch of crap. When is a middle aged white man is interested in news from Moscow in Punjabi. Really?