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!..."

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).

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.

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?