Stealing satellite

[HeyBub]

Of course it's not the same. The more people who watch unauthorized satellite TV, the more DTV or DISH can charge their advertisers.

[SteveB]

I agree. I'm just playing devil's advocate here and asking so that people who think theft and dishonesty is okay have a chance to explain themselves.

I DO have a problem, though, when I buy software, have multiple computers, and want to put it on all of them. FOR PRIVATE USE. How many people have more than one computer? Lots. Or one of them dies or I get rid of it, and want to use that program again. I'm not talking about big programs, but the little stuff. Especially when it's a ****5 program, and they're now up to

****11 version. Sounds like a can opener you buy, and you have to pay every time you want to use it after the first time. Or, whoops, you take it camping. Gotta pay to use it in a new location.

Steve

[SteveB]

Nice comparison. I like that.

Steve

[SteveB]

Or, you may be one of those people who get on the bus AFTER the crash. Been some pretty good stings on that.

Steve

[hallerb]

no authorized viewer, no $$ income.

widespread theft decreases the value of satellite tv, and besides its not reliable, anti theft measures are being implemented constantly knocking out your free service, which really isnt free, you likely paid someone for advice as to how to watch err steal service......

sit down to watch your favorite show just to find its out from latest countermeasure...........

geez isa it worth it?

let alone your name in the paper for theft???

it costs tons to uplink, satellite, and support satellite tv, isnt the company deserving of some profit?

[Mark Lloyd]

I suppose this difference has nothing to do with what constitutes "stealing". Otherwise you would have said what that is.

If it possible you're referring to the 2-way interaction in digital cable (while not accepting the existence of analog cable)?

[Mark Lloyd]

Then could the "stealing" (with cable) refer to the electrical loading on their system from an unauthorized connection?

Then it doesn't apply to a basic subscriber finding a way to decode the signals for additional channels the cable company wants money for?

BTW, in that last paragraph, I am NOT referring to anything interactive.

[Mark Lloyd]

I suppose it could be considered something like "contract breach".

Just WHERE is that dishonesty?

You know there's another place you can find that sort of problem. A BIG problem.

[Mark Lloyd]

"Losing" implies a CHANGE. Someone has something, and then does not. Like I said before, what the **** is that publisher doing with YOUR money when you haven't bought anything?

And not at all "theft".

Now, if you bought the book, copied it, then returned it for a refund...

[Mark Lloyd]

1. "buy" the software
2. Use it on ONE computer
3. that computer dies (or you just need to reinstall)
4. now you get to use it on NO computers, and are a victim of "protection"

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

Here's another one to think about.

1. You have a job cleaning drinking fountains in a hospital

1. The hospital pays you

2. A visitor comes in, gets a drink of water, and fails to get a deadly infectious disease because you cleaned that drinking fountain.

1. You (not the hospital) sue the visitor for "theft of service" since HE benefited from your service, but didn't pay you.

As to satellite companies, that company has expenses to provide the signals.

An additional receiver does how affect those expenses.

[Harry]

What's the cost of diesel fuel?

[Kurt Ullman]

But you bought something. You bought the book. You just copied it. You just stole the author's royalty, among other things. If you went to library, read the book and returned it, then it wouldn't anything. But you did something active which changed it from legal to illegal.

Still copyright violation. Still taking money away from the author since they don't get the royalty from returns. You are still ripping someone off and playing all sorts of word games to soothe your own conscious.

[Mark Lloyd]

Maybe you noticed that receiving from satellite is the same, so quietly switched to cable.

But not that. "Security" can be excessive.

[Sam E]

As passive as satellite.

[Sam E]

The "big bully" attitude.

Which has nothing at all to do with the definition of "stealing".

[Gary H]

[snip]

If we had a "stupidest statement" contest, that could win. Maybe you have no idea that it's corporations that control the government. How'd you miss that? It's like missing the 10-ton elephant in your living room.

Translation: The ideas THEY call silly.

Bullies laugh a lot. None of this has anything to do with what's right, what's wrong, and what's stealing (other than THEY'RE stealing your rights by putting you in jail).

Actually true. Something can't start working unless it's stopped.

[Kurt Ullman]

God that is a reach. He was paid for his service, cleaning up the fountain, by the hospital.

By not paying for them.

[Kurt Ullman]

But it isn't. You have to get the receiver, you have to find some way around the encryption, there are all sorts of steps that make it anything but passive.

Seems like anything that gets in the way of you getting something for free that others pay for meets your definition of "excessive".

[Kurt Ullman]

You can receive the signals passively, I guess I am probably doing that now. But to actually view them or get some use out of the signals, you have to be anything but passive.