Users Conned by Cable Con

RJ Mansfield writes "MSNBC is running a story on users attempting to con their cable companies being connned. The high-cost filter being sold on Ebay and through email Spam to bypass Pay-Per-View (PPV) digital cable systems is a readily available filter that only temporarily blocks the PPV charges. Users are getting shocked when the cable company then bills the cable user for all of the ordered PPV."

Comments

Sounds fair to me

[Spytap]

Sounds fair to me, but knowing the type of people who do this, their first reaction is going to be one of "What a second! We weren't told about this!! We were busy reaching around your jacket to get your wallet, we didn't know that you were grabbing ours in the process!"

Re:Sounds fair to me

[Gleef]

WegianWarrior asks:

I am however puzzled over one simple fact; can it really be legal in the USofA (where I presume this is happening) to sell such a device? Over here (Norway for those who don't get the clue from my nick) it would be quite illegal to sell something which is intended to allow the (l)user to break the law.

In the USA it is and it isn't. My understanding is, in most states, it is illegal to sell something for the purpose of committing a crime. As a corrolary to this, it is illegal to use criminal activities as selling point when making a sale. This makes the spam and many of the auctions illegal. It doesn't make selling the device illegal, you just have to limit yourself to the legal uses (filtering non-cabletv signals over coax).

Another example is the crowbar. If you work at a hardware store, and someone wants to buy one, you can assume they want to use it for legal purposes and legally sell it to them. If, however, they come to the counter talking about using it in a burglary or assault, you can not legally sell it. Likewise, you can't put a sign up advertising the "Crowmaster 2000, busts neighbors locks 30% faster" and continue to sell the product legally.

Some state laws may vary. I am not a lawyer, the above should not be considered legal advice.

Re:Sounds fair to me

[N3WBI3]

Yea because its not like a cable company spends money to provide service, its 100% income. Having worked for $cable_company I can tell you that it cost money to provide that service and when you **enter into a contract** with them trying to subvert it for free PPV is stealing.

People can rationalize it all they want but stealing money by breaking a contract is not okay because you did not take the source of the video.

The company did nothing wroing here and I would love to see the look on some poor bastards face who get a bill with all that p0rn having to tell his wife.

A single tear rolls down my cheek

[davmoo]

Wahhh!! That's so sad!! I need some tissue to dry away the tears!!

Not.

Anyone who is stupid enough to buy one of these devices is getting what they deserve. If you want the premium channels, then pay for them. If you think the cable company charges too much, then complain to them and rent DVDs. But that doesn't give you any right to steal the programming.

Re:A single tear rolls down my cheek

[jkrise]

Actually, it sounds like a good business model. Instead of making a superior product, it's better to build a lousy one, devise a con tool, anti-virus, anti-spam whatever.

Sell it to as many suckers as possible. When you reach a critical mass, devise a tool to kill the first product and milk the buggers dry.

X-Box modders watch out as well.

How much does the spirit of an 800lb gorilla weigh?

This is great!

[Buzz_Litebeer]

I just read the article, and the people are getting charged HUGE bills for watching TV that they didnt pay for, live, while it was being broadcast.

Hey they watched pay per veiw, a service that has been around a while and been accepted as being viable, and they are being told to pay for it. They dont even have ground to complain, it would be like getting robbed by a drug dealer who gave you bad drugs!

"well officer, I was trying to by some cocaine, and i found out that it was 50% sugar!"

I just find it funny some people are complaining about about being "cheated" by the product.

It's all one big plot!

[razormage]

And two years from now, the RIAA charges everyone that's been using Napster/Kazaa/Morpheus/Gnutella/Etc for all the music they've "bought".

Re:LOL

[UPi]

As clearly stated in the Acts of Gord: Think, then steal! Think, then steal! Not the other way around!

Seriously: This type of scam works because subscribers don't understand how the system works. If you advertised a device which will allow you to pay no taxes, everyone would catch on quickly.

I can see it now... "For $10 you don't need to file your taxes anymore! The deal of the century!..."

Its sad but.

[torre]

In reality, from experience these people tend to fall into two camps.... "I don't like digital", and "anything digital is good". And its for the exact same reason: how easy is it to pirate the material and how likely they are to accept change.

The acceptable use norm of material has been founded on the concept of being able to make a copy of whatever and whenever. Old analogue stuff was way too easy for anyone who had a vcr, digital stuff takes some work but once you have it you can ultimately do whatever you like. This is of course not what they owners/licensees want. And unfortunately this philosophy of anything intangible should ultimately be free as it cost them nothing to reproduce goes down deep in modern society.

What is needed is compromise on both parties, companies need to make things affordable instead of gouging consumers and the consumers have to realize that it cost somebody money and time to produce something so they should pay for it. I know this sounds a bit circular and communistic but the reality is that both camps can be happy if they both cooperate.

But this in the end is wishful thinking as the article clearly points out that there's plenty of people out there ready to cheat the system and complain when they get caught.

Re:LOL

[Moses Lawn]

Seriously: This type of scam works because subscribers don't understand how the system works. If you advertised a device which will allow you to pay no taxes, everyone would catch on quickly.

Sadly, you'd probably sell a bunch of them. People wouldn't catch on until the IRS came by to visit. For every semi-clueful person out there, there's a tax crank who's saying "Yeah - I'm getting one of these! I told you they had no constitutional right to do that!"

You Can't Cheat An Honest Man

[Scooby71]

As the saying goes.

Though I have to say I'm slightly puzzled by the consensus here that it is wrong not to pay for content and the 'victims' deserved all they get, but elsewhere on Slashdot there is outrage when action is taken against filesharers. When is copyright material not copyright material?

Re:You Can't Cheat An Honest Man

[thunderbee]

Action is taken against filesharers regardless of shared content. If the action is taken against them just because they are running a file sharing program, it is wrong. There are legal and honest uses to such programs. That's the difference I guess (at least, that's the difference I make).

Re:You Can't Cheat An Honest Man

[anubi]

Scooby, that is a good question.

My take is it that when I order a PPV, I typically know in advance what I am going to get. A fight. A porn show. Whatever. Its a one-time thing. Its not like something I intend to keep for quite some time. I might even time-shift such a thing. But I feel I have incurred obligation to pay for the service rendered, and have no problem doing so.

With music, I have no idea what I like until I sample some of it. I collect particular types of music that mean something to me. I do keep music I like around for a long time. There is a helluva lot of music out there - and I think I can say I consider 99 % of it as not worth the time to listen through. Its stuff I hear the first 15 seconds of it, and that's it. Delete. And mark not to retrieve any more by that artist if it is really bad ( probably 90% ). Music to me is really a very subjective very personal thing I must sample. Its kinda like trying to buy shoes if everybody had really different shaped feet, and shoes were non-returnable yet the merchant insisted you had to buy the shoes before you could see if they fit.

The music stores run this mousetrap style purchasing paradigm whereas there are no refunds if I make an incorrect purchasing decision, and the amount at stake is not trivial... usually in the $20 range. So it behooves me to know what I am getting before the money changes hands.

I see filesharing as only a technique used by the consumers trying to protect the interests of the merchant by educating themselves before purchase so the sale is final. This is no different than people doing research onto real estate before the parcel is auctioned. I really can not see why all the fuss, as people are only trying to arrange things so that the merchant's need for a final irrevokable sale can be met. I have many purchased CD's I like, but I went through a lot of crap to find them. But I am also aware that the music industry really frowns on my sampling the music, so I have abandoned it - and I have correspondingly went the longest time now not buying any either. I used to buy about 1 CD a week, but I have not bought one in 6 months now, because I go into the store and have no idea what it is I want. I might as well go into an auto parts store not having the slightest idea what part I need. The probability of them playing anything I find of interest on the store's system is less than 0.01 .

Re:You Can't Cheat An Honest Man

[mosch]

Your argument holds no water, at all. You simply enjoy stealing music.

Let's be honest, when you order pay per view porn, there's no way to know if the chicks will look good, or if they'll try to cram some sort of ill-fitting storyline into the movie, instead of admitting that the target market just wants to see people fucking. Same with the fight, sure you know who will be in the fight, but sometimes the fight sucks. Sometimes the dude gets knocked out in the first minute, while you were busy getting beers for your friends.

There's no guarantee placed on any content. Why do feel that you need to pretend that there's some sort of rational reason to steal music, but not cable? Either steal them both gleefully, or don't steal either of them at all.

Scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

... how people here are pointing out the balantly obvious fact that the people who are getting the bills are getting exactly what they deserve, since they have enjoyed a service that they have agreed to pay for, and therefore is only fair if they, well, pay for it...

While a couple of articles back these same people were defending the virtues of file "sharing" networks, where users are comfortably ignoring the fact that they have agreed *not* to redistribute the copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holders.

Really, make up your minds: either file sharing a la KaZaa is ok and the people who bought these devices shouldn't pay for the content they "downloaded" for free or file sharing a la KaZaa is *not* ok and the people who bought these devices should pay for the content they downloaded.

It's very simple: you want content X? You pay for it. Why? Because the content provider says so and we have given them the power to be like that.

Actually this is terrible

[gad_zuki!]

>"well officer, I was trying to by some cocaine, and i found out that it was 50% sugar!"

How about I was buying coke and half of it was cut with cyanide and a few friends died? Do we laugh them? If the nanny state says, "No drugs for you" that doesn't mean con artists get a free ride to do whatever they please.

I see no reason why the users of these devices shouldn't sue the retailers and manufacterers for false advertising. Just because something is contra-band doesnt give you the right to do what you please.

Its illegal to make lethal booby traps for criminals and for a good reason too. Not just to protect the police who might stumble on them (or kids or whomever) but because criminals actually have rights! Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its still a good idea.

Make the voices STOP!

[sllim]

Is there any possibilty that it is someone from a cable company posting these things on eBay?

Consider....

GPL

[Interfacer]

I think a lot of /.ers suffer from hypocrisy.

it is ok to con the PPV channel.
it is ok to con the music industry
it is ok to con Microsoft by copying all their software (for those of you who use it)

but when someone else (other article some time ago) violates the GPL by not opening their code, you rant and rave about 'theft'.

seriously, it is all the same.
the only difference is POV.

Int.

Why bother trying to warn people?

[BenjyD]

The people buying these filters are clearly :

1) Trying to break the law by stealing cable content
2) Complete morons

Why is anyone spending time and money taking out adverts on Ebay to warn them?

Here's the difference - plain and simple.

[aksansai]

P2P != copying music

In a cable service, you have channels that are eligible for and ineligible for when you pay a certain rate. This is the agreement that you have with your cable company. Obtaining more channels (or PPV features) without paying for them in illegal.

P2P is simply a concept - technology if you will - that allows machines to share files. No matter how you look at peer-to-peer transfers, I look at it in its basic parts: machines (peers) sending data to other machines (peers). P2P's concept has existed since we were able to transfer a file from one system to another. P2P's preferred modern implementations make it extraordinarily easy to transfer data - OF ANY TYPE - without having to use the old methods (of which I'll name a few):

1) "sneaker-net", in which case one person would place data on a tape, disk, or other medium to be transferred to another machine.

2) a computer (peer) connecting via sounds-signals to another computer (peer) via modem (or other like devices).

3) a computer (peer) connecting to a web server (peer) via TCP/IP.

The third example brings up a unique point since modern P2P clients generally transmit their data based off HTTP transactions - each client that runs such a client are acting as HTTP servers and HTTP clients.

RIAA is targetting the concept of P2P - the concept which they themselves use to hand out press releases and data to their customer base via http://www.riaa.org.

In the cable example, there are no legitimate (legal) reasons for obtaining channels outside the scope of your contract plan. As we have known since HTML was invented and widely deployed, there are plenty of fully LEGAL and GOOD reasons to have P2P - it's the basic function of the Internet. One peer connected to many different peers transmitting data (irregardless of content). Making P2P illegal is stupid. Punishing companies would provide a technologically innovative application to consumers is also just as stupid.

Let's view a parallel example:

Four people use a 1996 Chevy Impala SS as a fast getaway car that cost a bank a tens of thousands of dollars and injured a couple members of society. If it were up to the RIAA, not only would the perpetrators be locked up, but General Motors would have an injunction placed against them by a ruling judge for providing a vehicle to carry out illegal activites (referencing Napster). This abuse of the judicial system is sickening. It's also disappointing that the people we elect are not properly versed in the differentiate between technology and abuse of available technologies.

There is no computer that inherently attempts to commit illegal acts. Just like a 1996 Chevy Impala SS does not in itself attempt to commit an illegal act. I will even go so far as to say that the Napster, Gnutella clients, Kazaa!, and *Donkey P2P applications also themselves do not inherently commit illegal acts. The problem exists between the chair and the keyboard - if people choose to be dishonest and misuse a product in a which for which it was not intended, the liability is upon them. This applies to the people who wish to obtain cable service above and beyond the scope of their contract.