[mythtv-users] Odds of Linux CableCARD support?

Steven Adeff adeffs.mythtv at gmail.com
Fri Apr 7 17:39:31 UTC 2006


On 4/7/06, Joel Ostheller <j.ostheller at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/06, Joe Votour <joevph at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I haven't looked at the legal aspects of CableCard
> > (because neither I, nor the company that I work for
> > have interest in it yet), but I have gone through the
> > legal documentation for DOCSIS (another CableLabs
> > specification), as I have been previously employed by
> > companies doing DOCSIS work.
> >
> > At least in the DOCSIS days, you didn't have to be
> > DOCSIS certified in order to market a cable modem -
> > you could claim "DOCSIS compliance", and at that
> > point, it was buyer beware.  The cable operators
> > though wouldn't purchase the product, and at first,
> > they wouldn't even authorize it for use.  Nowadays
> > though, they'll authorize almost any cable modem
> > because it's easier for customer service.  If you try
> > to do something non-DOCSIS compliant, you'll get
> > kicked off the headend.
> >
> > With CableCard, I'm not sure if it's the same way, in
> > fact, I highly doubt that it is, given that everything
> > is digitally signed.  (In DOCSIS, there was a
> > CableLabs signature, and a vendor signature, and you
> > didn't need the DOCSIS signature for operation).
> >
> > I'd say that if you have to break encryption, you're
> > likely violating the DMCA.  There are also most likely
> > patents related to CableCard which could get you into
> > trouble also.
> >
> > You also face a technical issue which is (IIRC) that
> > CableCard provides for revocation of cards.  So, if
> > you are successful enough in breaking it, if your card
> > is easily identifiable, it will get added to
> > revocation lists, and will be rendered useless - in
> > theory.  There were numerous Motorola cable modems
> > which were compromised about a couple of years ago
> > (the Surfboard 3xxx series), and as far as I know
> > their keys weren't revoked - probably because Motorola
> > is a key player in CableLabs.
> >
> > That said, if there was some way that I could assist
> > in this without violating several laws and liability,
> > I'd be interested in doing Linux support for a
> > CableLabs supported CableCard product.
> >
>
> You bring up some interesting points. I will refine my question but first
> let me explain a little more what I am proposing....
>
> Very basic- "Digital Cable" is a digital video stream from the cable
> companies which is encoded with some algorithm. To decode that stream you
> need a cable box -or- CableCARD (tm). The CableCARD 1.0/2.0 you get from
> your cable provider provides *decoding algorithm* and IP routing
> funtionality. I am not talking about breaking encryption, but playing by the
> rules of the CableLabs Specification to setup a digital TV link from the
> cable companies to my Linux computer. There are some parts of the
> specification that i may choose not to implement as a "feature";
> specifically I seem to recall somewhere that the hardware (ie Linux
> computer) is technically supposed to report back to the host that it is a
> compliant cablelabs approved product; that wouldn't happen. But other then
> that, I believe I could create a cablelabs CableCARD reader for the PC and
> linux.
>
> Now back to my question - I am almost certain I couldn't build a Cablelabs
> CableCARD reader for the PC and then try and distribute it as that, because
> CableCARD is a trademarked name and unless I am approved to use that name on
> my product I couldn't. Okay, I'm fine with not using that name, no biggie.
> But If I implement custom hardware that interfaces to my cable provider, am
> I in for legal problems? My cable company gives me a cableCARD, and instead
> of putting it in my TV, I put it in my PC in a custom box I made. The custom
> box I made does not do anything that the cable companies prohibit (ie... I'm
> not stealing it. I bought the service and am legally decoding it from their
> CableCARD they provided me with). BUT what about cableLABS??? I wouldn't be
> paying CableLabs any sort of royalty, which is probably a problem since I
> had to use their specification to design this custom hardware. Not only that
> but CableLABS probably wouldn't allow me to license their technology because
> the cable companies and networks do not want their stuff "stolen" by having
> it copied to your hard drive.  I think the answer to my question is: "sure I
> could make one for myself and trusted friends, but if I try and make a buck
> off it then I will be sued for all I have."
>
> To put this into perspective, as a rough estimate, I could probably make
> these cableCARD readers for the PC for 30 bucks or less in mass quantity.

It honestly comes down to whose lawyers are better, or better funded.
Theres nothing illegal about making a system that interacts with
another system so long as your way of doing it is not identical to
their way (ie stealing their code). But in recent history businesses
have proven that Judges are, well, dumb or easy to pay off.

the other issue with this is that cable companies have the idea in
their head that they own the content until the photons reach your
eyeballs, and if they could, they would try and own the content even
after it enters your brain. So while it may not be illegal by a
current law, you could be breaking a contractual agreement between you
and them (oh, yea, contracts, those things our law system was supposed
to be based on before people felt it would be better for the
government to write all the contracts and force you to abide by them).
If not now, they can rewrite the contract terms and require you to
sign off on the new terms to continue service.

the script kiddies would love you though ;-)

--
Steve


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list