The action by Sky against RSD took a turn for the absurd recently. The UK consumer publication, ``What Satellite?'' contacted BSkyB's legal department about the actual definition of the word ``terminal'' in the Sky Subscriber Agreement. The reply confounded the industry. According to the enlightened people in Sky's legal department a ``terminal'' is a television set.
It takes a while to sink in doesn't it? These people consider the terminal as being the television set while the rest of the satellite television industry always considered the decoder/IRD as being the terminal.
Perhaps it is just a case of technological ignorance. It is common, in large computer systems and businesses, for the non- technical to refer to individual computers as terminals. It would not be difficult to see the same mindset declaring the television as a terminal. After all the data, in this case the programming, is displayed on the television screen, which to the non-technical might just appear like the screen on the terminal.
How the Hell could anyone in Sky be so stupid as to define ``terminal'' as being the television set? While internally they might have gotten away with it but in the real world, and especially when talking to the leading Uk consumer publication, it was downright moronic.
This interpretation of the term is so wide that it means that a television shop supplying RF splitters and cable to someone to connect a second television to their satellite receiver would be guilty of an offence under the UK Copyright Patents and Design Act 1988.
The claim by Sky's legal department that the television is a terminal is clearly illogical. It is also skating very close to an unenforcable contract. How can Sky actually check that a subscriber is not routing the descrambled picture to a second television set?
Over the past few years, the Sky Subscriber Agreement has been edited by Sky with the grace of a ballet dancing elephant. All the time it is being tilted more in the favour of Sky. While on the surface these changes were to clear up ambiguities, the reality is that they are being made to try and enforce security that has been sadly lacking from the actual scrambling system.
While recent legislation in the UK made it legal for a consumer to record a television program in order to watch it later, (time- shifting), Sky is attempting to counter this by including in its Subscriber Agreement terms that preclude this.
According to ``What Satellite'', the clause `copying, redistributing or relaying the service or any of the channels other than in the premises and for personal domestic use' has been changed to `copying, redistributing or relaying the service or any of the channels in the premises or elsewhere.' The article goes on to point out that the these new terms do not apply to subscribers with older Subscriber Agreements.
Sky neglected to issue new Subscriber Agreements with the new terms to all of the subscribers with older contracts. Since these changes have rather far reaching effects, they would necessitate at least some explanation to the subscriber.
Basically it is not possible to be party to an agreement that you are unaware of. It is a matter of consent. If the Sky Subscriber Agreement is an open ended contract that allows Sky to change the terms without notifying the subscriber then it does not seem to be valid.
The theory of a secure access control system was lost on Sky and News Datacom. In the race to acquire subscribers they had to assemble a scrambling system in about a year or so. This is far short of the typical development timescale for a scrambling system. The VideoCrypt system was very much a potpourri of various scrambling patents from Thomson and an access control system provided by News Datacom.
While the original system was good, it tended to ignore the fact that it was to be deployed in the most hostile piracy environment on the planet.
News Datacom had indoctrinated Sky into believing in total security. Unfortunately the reality was that there is no such thing, especially so in satellite television field.
The secure access control system aspect of the VideoCrypt system collapsed on one point. When Sky lost control over the decoders it lost control over the system.
Over that particular period in time, (1989 - 1990), Sky were in what was a very dangerous financial position. Every satellite television journalist had an undated obituary for Sky ready, just in case.
As the fight between BSB and Sky grew more intense, it was necessary to flood the market and get subscribers. So it could be argued that at the expense of security, it was necessary to get subscribers.
From a financial view point this was probably the correct decision but it only created problems that are all too apparent today.
By comparison, the German channel Premiere has a better grasp of realities both in terms of security and finance. They maintain ownership of the Syster decoders. The subscriber only rents the decoder. If the subscriber ``loses'' the decoder, he also loses his deposit. This is a perfect implementation of an access control system because not only does the channel control access to the programming, it also controls access to the means of accessing the programming - the decoder.
The antics of Sky's legal department over the last few months appear to be somewhat of an attempt to impose order on a chaotic system.
They lost the technological battle a long time ago so now they are trying to fight on a new battleground - the courts. Unfortunately while the Sky legal people wallow in the eighteenth century mire, the industry is rapidly moving towards the twenty-first century.
The core of their problem is not the subscriber, nor the pirate but rather the VideoCrypt system. At one time it was a good system but now it is a dinosaur. No amount of legal tooing and froing is going to save it.
There has got to be a deeper reason for the move against the TwoView. It is just too coincidental to be a move against RSD in particular.
The terms that Sky is now seeking to enforce on its subscribers are very restrictive. They do not want a subscriber to time shift a movie or any other programme. They do not want the service fed to a second television set. They want a second subscription for each terminal. Perhaps this is Sky's move into terrestrial television - they want a licence fee for each television in a subscriber's home.
A few sources have commented that this could be a prelude to the introduction of Pay Per View on VideoCrypt. Such a move by Sky would be downright suicidal. The VideoCrypt system is not secure enough for Pay Per View.
There is a huge gaping flaw in the security. It is possible to record the scrambled video on a VCR and make a real-time recording of the valid key data with a PC. The valid key stream can then be distributed via BBS or internet a few minutes after the programme ends.
The name of this hack is DDT or Delayed Data Transfer and it is part of the Omigod hack that is freely available on BBSes and internet sites throughout Europe. While it is true that this hack would not be viable for sporting events, first run movies would easily fall prey.
The only answer to the question will be an independently audited set of subscription figures for the Sky channels.