[linux-dvb] Re: Do dvb drivers support Nagravision CA?

[Manu Abraham <manu@kromtek.com>]

Hi folks,
		I work for a company that does redistribution of satellite services, we work 
along with providers like Showtime, CNBC Arabiya, Star TV (Middle East), ADD 
(Arab Digital Distribution) etc..

		Couple of months back, we are asked by Showtime & ADD to find out the people 
who were redistributing the "  Media Content  " illegally--- the terms what i 
mean is that any subscription for your Conditional Access Module is valid on 
the *vendor certified hardware only* not on any other platform. We caught 
around 40 - 50 people who were doing so.

		What i understood was that "if your platform has to be certified", you have 
to send it to the vendor's approval process, wherein which they will check up 
all the conditions, the major thing is 

	1) whether the platform supports the display of entitlement messages. (This 
message is something like a small string of numbers, something like the MAC 
address for eg.

	2) Currently the Linux DVB drivers do not support that, and in that case do 
not stand for the approval. This process is something like getting Dolby 
approval to put the Dolby logo on your eqpt.

	3) There had been issues like this with Humax and Technosat receiver people. 
Both of them have embedded CA modules. Humax only recently got their issue 
solved, they had to pay a huge lumpsum amount to have the issue solved.

	The issue with Technosat still remains.

	The vendors do not like their content to be misutilized. ie, you buy *1 
standard subscription* and distribute to  *n* clients. This is illegal. This 
is something like renting out video tapes from a video library. The video 
store guy buys,

---- 1 legal copy of a movie, 
---- makes 'n' copies
---- rents out to 'm' users


	Here the distribution company gets paid for 1 movie, while the video store 
guy gets paid for the rest. Isn't that something like pirating software ? 


Regards,
Manu


On Friday 16 Jul 2004 9:51 pm, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Thomas Schorpp wrote:
> > cause as i understood you, youre NOT the contents provider
>
> Then you misunderstood me, as I clearly stated I AM the content
> provider. Please stop labouring the legal point, I have legal rights to
> decrypt this content, our lawyers say it to be so. Right now I am
> interested in technical details, rather than a theoretical legal
> discussion that does not apply in this case.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --