Cable Box Piracy Ring Busted

WC as Kato writes "The U.S. Attorney's Office said it has busted a huge cable piracy ring. They made over $10 million in 5 years by advertising on the Internet and in magazines. Their only cover to the illegality of their actions was a disclaimer that the boxes were not illegal to own. Police say customers who purchased them are now at risk of being arrested. Did any customer actually fall for their 'legal disclaimer?'"

Comments

Were not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely that should read.. "_were_ illegal to own"?

Re:Were not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurray. I can own a gun, but I can't own a hacked cabled box.

Well...

[lamery]

If it looks like a binding legal agreement it must be one. *cough* eula *cough*

Re:Well...

[tealover]

I've had an "illegal" descrambler for over 10 years. Cablevision can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to pay for that bullshit.

I look at it as though I'm leveling the playing field.

Re:Well...

[Feztaa]

I look at it as though I'm leveling the playing field.

Do you also steal from the wealthy?

Re:Well...

[csplinter]

Big corprate enterprises are the wealthy.

4 when it's /.ed

[fmlug.org]

Here it is find the story here-->
http://fox40.trb.com/news/ktxl-121703ille galcable, 0,4418393.story?coll=ktxl-news-1

Two Men Accused In Illegal Cable Piracy Scam

Police Say Suspects Offered Free Television For The One-time Price Of A 200 Dollar Chip

Mike Bond

December 17, 2003

SACRAMENTO -- It was installation day for residents at a new apartment complex in North Natomas.

But for every legitimate cable customer who signs up, Comcast officials say there are plenty of people ripping off programming with illegal descramblers called black boxes.

Assistant US Attorney Robert Tice- Raskin says, "The disclaimer were really nothing more than a wink and a nod by these conspirators to members of the public."

At a news conference this afternoon, federal prosecutors announced they'd arrested two people who are accused of selling descramblers throughout the state and the country.

Over the past five and a half years, they're accused of masterminding a money laundering scheme that's earned them more than 10-million dollars.

US Attorney McGregor Scott says, "The dollar amounts that are involved really make this stand out -- it really is a unique and distinct set of circumstances."

Officials say the descramblers were advertised on the internet and in magazines with a disclaimer that the boxes were not against the law to own.

Nevertheless, police say customers who purchased them are now at risk of being arrested.

Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas says, "Common sense dictates if you have a black box, you're violating the law, disclaimer or no disclaimer. I mean if that was the case, everybody would have access to these movies!"

Cable Customer Gwenice Garnett says, "I'm not going to squeal on 'em, but I do know people who have them."

Gwenice Garnett was happy to hear about the bust as she stopped by Comcast this evening to upgrade to digital cable.

She's paying 70-bucks a month.

Garnette says, "I pay a substantial amount of money for my cable and if I have to pay, they should have to pay!"

DMCA,,,?

[cRueLio]

I bet they will try the customers under the DMCA, having used the cable box as a "circumvention device" against protections put up by the cable provider.

Then again, a crafty legal time might just be able to argue this case in terms of the fact that the customer was fooled by the legal disclaimer.

Just my two cents...

Re:DMCA,,,?

[dissy]

Before the DMCA, technically they were right, these boxes _are_ legal to own.
Now, its very illegal to _USE_ them... But to just own one, that was not.

Now granted, who in their right mind would spend money on one just to own and not use, I couldnt tell ya. But as far as the disclaimer goes, they only mentioned owning, not using, so it was technically acurate and truthful.

But you are no doubt right. DMCA makes any trafficing in them illegal now, including buying one.

I'm shocked these two people kept records around at all.
Saving finantual documents for 7 years is only for ligit businesses after all ;)

Re:DMCA,,,?

[poge]

I don't know about America, but here in Scotland ignorance of the law is no excuse...

Re:DMCA,,,?

[Eggplant62]

Before the DMCA, technically they were right, these boxes _are_ legal to own.
Now, its very illegal to _USE_ them... But to just own one, that was not.

I'm curious about this situation where I might be able to see where there *is* a legal, non-infringing use. Suppose I already am a subscriber, but I purchase my own equipment, ie, one of these black boxes, to use instead of my cable provider's in order to save the extra charges they tack on to the bill for each box? Fair use? Or illegal?

Re:DMCA,,,?

[WebMasterP]

Legal ignorance not an excuse in the US either. There is prosecutorial discretion, but I doubt that will be used here.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[Urkki]

Actually I see this as one of the few places where the principle of DMCA is somewhat justified. Ie the principle that it's illegal to go around digital protection techniques in order to use non-free digital content for free.

Anything beyond that (such as saying you can't make mp3 rips of your own CDs for your own convenience, like for car *and* portable player *and* summer cottage), as well as the punishments in DMCA are still ridiculous though, as well as a lot of other implied stuff in it.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[mark_lybarger]

interesting. so you own the right to use the content on the cd you purchased, but not the right to inspect and possibly use the extra content being streamed into your house by the cable company provider that you didn't order?

lets say new cd's start coming out with extra content on them (high quality mp3's of tracks not on the disk perhaps) that is encrypted, and to access the work, you need to purchase a key from the distribution company (RIAA). maybe microsoft media player licenses the right to have embeded keys in their software so they can play the encrypted mp3's but no other software can that doesn't pay the high license fee. if you figure out how to decode those mp3's, is it _right_ to listen to the content contained on them?

Re:DMCA,,,?

[Urkki]

I'm talking about the principle here. We're entering an era where a lot of things are digital, immaterial. There are a lot of issues that are still seeking form, such as copyright issues with material that is trivial to copy.

Also, this is not a case where the users who bought the device in article figured out a way to get protected content. They paid somebody else to get their hands on that content wihtout paying the content provider. My common sense says that's on a general level same as stealing (like sneaking into a ball game or a movie without a ticket, or buying a forged ticket from street and using it, you know what I mean). Wether it is a big or small crime and how it should be punished is a good question, but IMHO there's no question that making it punishable is somehow wrong.

In my opinion, digital protection schemes should be such that you can not "unintentionally" or trivially go around them, but they don't need to be unbreakable, because that puts too much cost in the distribution, and guess who pays that cost... Ordering a descrambling device is not unintentional, and it's not trivial either (if it were, you wouldn't need to order a plug-and-play device from somebody else, you could just do it yourself). Therefore I think that this is *just* the kind of thing a sensible version of DMCA would be about.

There's a lot of gray area here obiviously, but I don't see this as a big problem. There's a lot of gray area in other legal things too, such as traffic. Like you can get fined for jaywalking on an empty street if you meet a nasty police officer, but it's not very sensible to suggest that jaywalking should always be legal.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[Anonymous Coward]

You tell your cable company you've bought a box and see what happens as a result.

My guesses:

- you'll still have to rent one and pay for it to get service
- you'll be subjected to routine 'bullets' and other service interruptions requiring onsite repair
- you'll be visited by cops

Re:DMCA,,,?

[orbit0r]

I bet they will try the customers under the DMCA, having used the cable box as a "circumvention device"

Now the DMCA will turn it into a "circumcision device"!!! ouch!

Re:DMCA,,,?

[mark_lybarger]

I'm a programmer, so I prefer black and white. Enough of this _intent_ of the action, or what common sense tells you, etc.

The fact of the matter is that a person has ordered a service from a company that happens to have a flawed delivery mechanism which can be easily exploited to provide consumers with the extra content they deliver along with the paid content.

Ball games, movie tickets, concert tickets. those examples are kinda outta this relm. In those instances, you're purchasing access to enter another person or corporation's facilities for a limited time.

How about if cell phones or even home land lines could easily be modified or just used in such a way that they provided unmetered usage? Perhaps someone discovers that if you enter *420 before making an overseas call, that the call will not be metered. Is it wrong to make a call like this? Should it be illegal to do so? You're just buying phone service, the ability to dial numbers and be connected. They provide a dial tone and connectivity. They also provide a pricing structure. If their delivery system contains a flaw that allows easy access, then the system needs to be fixed. Don't shoot the messenger, or shoot the man who's having sex with your wife who's sleeping around all over town. Fix the problem ;).

I don't think it matters how trivial it is to get around the problem is. Perhaps, you only need to order a special device for you playstation that allows it to bypass the boot up sequence and allows you to play "backup" games for your playstation. Is this wrong, is this illegal? You're accessing the system in a way it was untintented to be accessed...

Re:DMCA,,,?

[letxa2000]

I seriously doubt they're going to arrest any of the customers. Or at least they aren't going to arrest many of them.

If they earned $10 million then there are apparently a lot of people that bought these things. You don't win elections or build rapport with the citizens in your area by arresting tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding, productive citizens for something like this. The constituents and citizens will be rightfully pissed off and will make their feelings clearly known.

This is just one more example of how things like the DMCA are out of step with reality. While I agree that the people that build and sold these things should be arrested, you're not going to score any brownie points with the public going after their customers--especially considering how many there are. I think I saw these things mentioned in spam for, what, $100? If so, 10 million would be about 100,000 customers. You can't arrest 100,000 people and win the next election.

I also suspect that while most people in the U.S. would probably agree that these guys should be in trouble, I doubt you'll find much sympathy for the cable providers when it comes to your next-door neighbor trying to avoid being extorted into paying what cable companies bill their subscribers.

In thecase of Cable companies, just like the RIAA, the first thing they need to do to stem piracy is price their product reasonably. If you price your product too high there WILL be a black market.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[aminorex]

If Charter Communications is going to pump the
Playboy channel into my house without my
permission, I'm going to sue their assets off.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[Urkki]

• I'm a programmer, so I prefer black and white. Enough of this _intent_ of the action, or what common sense tells you, etc.
  The fact of the matter is that a person has ordered a service from a company that happens to have a flawed delivery mechanism which can be easily exploited to provide consumers with the extra content they deliver along with the paid content.

The world in general doesn't care in the slightest what you prefer. The unscrupulous criminal out there cares even less. World is not black and white, and preferring it otherwise does not change the world.

In this case the delivery mechanism was not easily exploited, you had to get special hardware first, to *pay* someone else to provide you the means. That's not really "flawed" in my book.

• Ball games, movie tickets, concert tickets. those examples are kinda outta this relm. In those instances, you're purchasing access to enter another person or corporation's facilities for a limited time.

I would very much argue that people pay for a ball game ticket to see the game live. Having access to stadium is just coincidental, a mechanism to control who can see the game, it's not what people actually pay for.

As I said, we are entering an era where a lot of things are immaterial. However, our society and economy still rotates around money, and there must be a link between physical stuff (such as food) and immaterial stuff (such as cable TV content). Either we need to reform our entire society very radically so this link will no longer be needed (communism vs capitalism is nothing compared to this). Or then immaterial stuff needs to have material value, and then bypassing physical access control (stadium fence) or bypassing a digital access control (encryption) are much the same thing conceptually.

• How about if cell phones or even home land lines could easily be modified or just used in such a way that they provided unmetered usage? Perhaps someone discovers that if you enter *420 before making an overseas call, that the call will not be metered. Is it wrong to make a call like this?

Wrong example. The case here is more like people buying blue boxes specifically for the express purpose of making free calls, and then also actually use it for that purpose. Your example IMHO really falls into the category of "trivial", while buying a blue box does not.

• I don't think it matters how trivial it is to get around the problem is. Perhaps, you only need to order a special device for you playstation that allows it to bypass the boot up sequence and allows you to play "backup" games for your playstation. Is this wrong, is this illegal? You're accessing the system in a way it was untintented to be accessed...

Well, modifying hardware you own should be completely legal. Playing illegally obtained copies of games, by default, should be illegal. They are separate issues and I don't see a contradiction here.

The thing in this case is, getting a device that can only be used for watching cable illegally is pretty strong sign that it is also used for this purpose. That alone should not be reason enough for getting convicted of a crime, but it should give right to ask why did someone get such a device if it really was not for a sole purpose of commititng a crime.

Again I also repeat, current DMCA is rather ridiculous overall, but still, this exact case just the one where DMCA should apply.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose I already am a subscriber, but I purchase my own equipment, ie, one of these black boxes, to use instead of my cable provider's in order to save the extra charges they tack on to the bill for each box? Fair use? Or illegal?

You can buy legal boxes that aren't hacked. These people are talking about hacked boxes. I guess if you had some way to show that you never watched anything you didn't pay for, you might be ok, but I think the fact that you bought a hacked box instead of a legit one should be a sign that you aren't going to follow the rules. (This makes a big difference in a civil case)

Re:DMCA,,,?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo Go Girl!

Re:DMCA,,,?

[zakezuke]

I'm curious about this situation where I might be able to see where there *is* a legal, non-infringing use. Suppose I already am a subscriber, but I purchase my own equipment, ie, one of these black boxes, to use instead of my cable provider's in order to save the extra charges they tack on to the bill for each box? Fair use? Or illegal?

The problem is actually talking to the cable company and getting them to hookup third party equipment. In theory you can do this no problem, though I've had NO luck picking up boxes at the local thrift store as their responce was "It looks stolen the stickers are missing". I assumed that it was probally cable owned, but some poor sap didn't return it and got charged an arm and a leg for it, and as a direct result it was actually legaly purchaced rather then being stolen. But alas, they won't even look into it, they'll just snag the box, put it under their desk, give you $20.00 and send you on your way.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Answer this question, who has more money, you or the cable company.

Then you'll be able to figure out if it will be considered fair use or not.

It really can be so easy to figure out who will win any given legal battle in the USA.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[cayenne8]

I don't know....they've gone after people who bought stuff from the satelite tv people....who were based in Canada. I hear Direct TV is going after people they had on their lists as customers...for buying a card re-programmer, which does have alternate uses besides pirating satellite tv...even without any more proof than they bought a product from a company that DID sell somethings that allowed for descrambling the signal.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[geoffspear]

More people smoke marijuana than steal cable service. By your argument, the government would never arrest anyone for possession.

Re:DMCA,,,?

[csplinter]

Excuse me for saying so but those are all pretty much questions.

The cable boxes themselves weren't illegal

[Capeman]

They weren't illegal, what made them illegal was the descrambler, which enables all scrambled channels on analog cable, they don't work on digital cable.

I don't understand ...

[errl]

... why people never stop their illegal activities when they've earned enough money? I mean, $5,000,000 should be enough for anyone for quite a while? It seems that they'll eventually get caugh otherwise and don't have any real use of the money anyways, like in this case...

Re:I don't understand ...

[fmlug.org]

Money, thats why people dont stop there illegal actions. Its like gambaling, oh I just won $50 but if I put it all back in I get $500. That kinda pay off clouds peoples judgement, most of the time the fact that they may end up losing everything doesnt even enter into their minds. We live in a society where every one wants to get rich easily and dont wana work for the money. The reality is the easier the money is to come by the quicker your going to lose it, well at least most of the time. I guess thats my 2 cents.

Re:I don't understand ...

[Anonymous Coward]

640K should be enough for anyone.

-- Bill Gates, 1982.

Re:I don't understand ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be called greedy human nature.

Re:I don't understand ...

[__aatgod8309]

I see your 2 cents and raise you a dime...

Re:I don't understand ...

[errl]

Probably some truth in that I'd say. I still have trouble understanding why people can't just use their better judgement (well, when they conduct in illegal activities they've already failed maybe :). It just doesn't make sense to me to continue harvest those rewards when _know_ you'll eventually loose it all. I'll have to work my brain a bit on this one I guess :)

Re:I don't understand ...

[fmlug.org]

That's why I like computers better when they don't act the way you want them to you have a variety of options my fav is to just turn the sucker of or format over windows and install Linux, if Linux is already installed see option 1. The human mind is rather intriguing to me, maybe I should have taken some psychology classes in collage, blast them comsci classes why did assembly have to be so much more interesting. If you happen to come up with an answer to this question you may have found the key to solving lots of man, or the PC term peoples problems. (That's politically correct not personal computer.) I not sure if this rant has a point so Ill end. BTW good orig post.

Re:I don't understand ...

[Urkki]

They may know theyd'd eventually get caught, but probably not just yet... They can always get a bit more, *then* retire very soon, just after the next $million or so. But well before getting caught by those stupid law enforcement dolts...

Or something like that :-)

Re:I don't understand ...

[halaloszto]

they do! just in the cases when they stop at $5M, and never get caught, you do not see thm in the news. that's the main reason for stopping at $5M - not to be caught, not to make it to the news. vajk

Re:I don't understand ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say that, you stupid shit.

Re:I don't understand ...

[ameoba]

At the rate things are going, $640K won't even be enough to get my children through college.

Re:I don't understand ...

[TheMidget]

They may know theyd'd eventually get caught, but probably not just yet... They can always get a bit more, *then* retire very soon, just after the next $million or so.

Reminds me of the stock market in 1999 / 2000. "Sure, I know that there is a bubble. But it is highly improbably that it will burst right now..."

Re:I don't understand ...

[wrax]

Because you will never have enough money. Thats the short of it anyway. If you know that you can make $10,000 really easily and with almost no risk, but for the chance to make $20,000 you need to take a little risk, I'm guessing that you'll go for the 20 grand.

In the case where they were makeing $200 per box they sold I don't think they actually knew how much money they were actually making, and as they were probably splitting with someone else, no one person was getting that whole 10 mil, more likely they made 1 mil each over a period of 5 years. A lot of money to be sure, but not nearly a large amount.

Re:I don't understand ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Diversify between different no-load, indexed mutual funds.

Re:I don't understand ...

[letxa2000]

more likely they made 1 mil each over a period of 5 years. A lot of money to be sure, but not nearly a large amount.

A million each over 5 years and that isn't nearly a large amount? Man, I want YOUR job. :)

Re:I don't understand ...

[notcreative]

At the rate I read /., I won't have children to put through college.

Re:I don't understand ...

[illcare]

Yep, just stop after earning half of what gets you caught and you are good.

Only if you can figure out that limit, of course.

Re:I don't understand ...

[wrax]

Well mabey its a lot of money to the normal serfs like us but its really not that much money if you have to pay for components, sales, actually having a storefront, power, webhosting. You also have to imagine that the end value of the tab may (read probably) have been inflated artifically by the Justice dept to make the bust seem bigger than it really was.

Pot busts are regularly inflated by Law Enforcement claiming they have more pot then they actually do. The Police weigh the drugs by the whole plant, not by how much dope actually comes off the plant. The measurement they get is multiplied by a high street price to get the number that actually gets reported to the press. I'd suspect this is more of the same type of sensationalism. Really the guys were lucky to be making more than 50k a year off these things, I'd be really surprised to hear that they made more than that.

Re:I don't understand ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Man you people sure are easy to troll for.

Geez"

[Sklivvz]

Two guys got arrested. Big news, indeed. What a huge ring!

Was it "The One Ring", by any chance? :^D

And now for some karma whoring: "in Soviet Russia the ring arrests you!"

Re:Geez"

[paxcirca]

And now for some karma whoring: "in Soviet Russia the ring arrests you!" In Soviet Russia, bad joke perpetutates you!

Re:Geez"

[Channard]

Two guys got arrested. Big news, indeed. What a huge ring! Was it "The One Ring", by any chance? :^D

Are we talking about Tolkein or the Goatse guy here?

Dear DirecTV

[mikeswi]

Dear DirecTV,

Please take note. This is how you deal with people pirating your signals without being viewed as jackbooted thugs. You find people buying and selling equipment designed specifically to do that.

Contrast this to your current methods which involve extorting protection money out of people who do NOT pirate your signals simply because they bought a programmable smart card with a wide range of possible uses, one of which *might* lead to the pirating of your signals.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[Anonymous Coward]

...jumping jee-ho-se-fat ye-haw

Re:Dear DirecTV

[Pompatus]

Contrast this to your current methods which involve extorting protection money out of people who do NOT pirate your signals simply because they bought a programmable smart card with a wide range of possible uses, one of which *might* lead to the pirating of your signals.

True, but on the other hand if you bought your smartcard programmer from a site called www.hackdss.com I think there is a plausable argument that you might have purchaced said equipment to hack dss.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[Powercntrl]

Dear DirecTV,

Please take note. This [trb.com] is how you deal with people pirating your signals without being viewed as jackbooted thugs. You find people buying and selling equipment designed specifically to do that.

They're doing exactly what you describe... They're just also going after people that have purchased smartcard equipment from dealers that are known to sell to DirecTV pirates.

While I don't agree with DirecTV's extortion tactics ("settle with us or face certain doom in litigation!"), I do see them as justified in going after people that purchased smartcard equipment from dss hack sites. If you knew a local crack dealer could get you great deals on Tylenol, would you buy from him instead of the local grocery store? If so, would you REALLY be at all surprised when the police who were watching the crack dealer (possibly to catch a bigger fish like his supplier) come knocking on your door?

Let's say in the future, Blockbuster Video decides they have a really big problem with people renting and ripping DVDs. They could conceivably do the same thing DirecTV is doing... Raid the retailers that sell DVD decryption software and revoke the membership of (and/or sue!) their customers who bought the software. If that was the case, I sure as hell wouldn't want to buy a DVD burner from a site that sells software capable of decoding CSS.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[fuzzybunny]

Doesn't parse.

You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime, or in some cases, that they are about to. And even then there are strong limits (e.g. you must plan or threaten or somesuch--IANAL.) No pre-crime police here.

It's the age-old argument about being pulled over with lockpicks in a state where lockpics are not illegal. Although yes, technically, while not necessarily in accordance with the law, a cop can in practice arrest you if he doesn't like your ugly mug. But then, that's why we have laws, innit.

Same with smart cards. As long as it was a legal transaction, the goods were not stolen, no tax laws were violated, whatever, you have not committed any crime, whether I buy it from DirecTV (although it escapes me why anyone would want to voluntarily watch _more_ TV, paid or free), my cable box p1r8, or my neighborhood crack dealer.

And as for your Blockbuster example, I'd be fairly happy about doing my little tiny infinitesmal bit to maintaining the free market and taking my custom elsewhere and telling everyone I know to do the same. You'd be surprised how fast that sort of thing can result in a consumer backlash.

Lastly, the use of litigation as a threat to extort money out of individuals against whom there is no indication of a crime or intent to commit a crime beyond circumstancial evidence (yes, that is precisely what it is) is immoral, unethical, and downright pathetic. And once again, it has led to me, for whatever little tiny unnoticeable bit it's worth, voting with mr. wallet.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt inorder to arrest or investigate someone, only to convict them (and I think that is only for criminal court anyway, not civil court).

Re:Dear DirecTV

[Powercntrl]

You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime, or in some cases, that they are about to. And even then there are strong limits (e.g. you must plan or threaten or somesuch--IANAL.) No pre-crime police here.

Agreed. DirecTV should just report the suspected theft to the proper authorities. The police would need a search warrent, and if granted - find out if the suspect has a DirecTV reciever, hacking equipment and a dish. That should be all that is needed for a conviction. As I stated in the previous post, I don't agree with DirecTV's tactics of enforcement... They should just relay the information they have to the real police.

It's the age-old argument about being pulled over with lockpicks in a state where lockpics are not illegal.

What if the lockpicks where purchased from an online retailer named "burglarytools.com", a site which features a forum for burglars to talk about picking locks, disarming alarms and scouting out potential targets? What if the police raided the site and went through the customer list? While the tools are not illegal to posess, the use advocated by the seller indicates intent by the buyer. If I was going to sell a zippo lighter on ebay, I certainly wouldn't list it as a "portable arson tool".

Same with smart cards. As long as it was a legal transaction, the goods were not stolen, no tax laws were violated, whatever, you have not committed any crime,...

While I agree, there are in many places laws where you can be arrested for simply querying a prostitute about her services. Of course, you could be leagally intersted in employing a prostitute as a porn star, so asking her if she wants money to have sex (with another porn star in your movie) could be a perfectly legal question... If the police nabbed you, you'd have to prove your innocence by providing proof that you really do produce adult films and that was your sincere intention.

As to voting with your wallet, I agree. If DirecTV felt a backlash, they'd most likely reconsider their ways. Unlike the RIAA, whom enjoys a stranglehold on pretty much all popular music, DirecTV has competition. You'd think DirecTV's competitors would jump at the chance to fling mud and get the word out about DirecTV's antics, but who knows...

Re:Dear DirecTV

[f0rt0r]

>>Replacing "MS" with "M$" doesn't make you clever. Aren't I clever for pointing that out?

No, but it does make you accurate. Hopefully you understand the meaning of purposeful spelling mistake.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[fuzzybunny]

What if the lockpicks where purchased from an online retailer named "burglarytools.com"...

If burglarytools.com is not committing any illegal acts (and in some countries/states, discussing the how-tos of crimes _is_ illegal), you are not committing any crime.

Note my careful original formulation--if neither party in the transaction is doing anything illegal, the transaction, no matter how suspicious, is legal. It's the same as running down the street shouting about anarchy and martians and things; I might get a ticket for causing a public disturbance, but the content is not illegal.

Now I'll thoroughly agree with you that "discretion is the better part of valor" and that if you want to produce a porn flick, driving up and down the street, acting like a john and asking any old ho if she'll go along may not be the wisest M.O. and the cops would have what's called "probable cause" to arrest you (as the AC below said, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' applies to conviction, not arrest) but they would still have to prove your guilt in court, no?

That said, it's just snowed buckets in the alps and I don't think I'll be watching a lot of the crap that's shown on TV this winter, let alone going to the trouble of either paying for or stealing _more_ of it... :-)

Re:Dear DirecTV

[jacobcaz]

• You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime

This is true for criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings all you need to do is establish a stronger case than the other side, "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't enter in to it!

Yeah it sucks -- deeper pockets win, etc. -- but it's something that more people should know. Don't go into a civil case all smug because you think the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You'll suddenly feel much less smug when the judge hands a decision to the plainiff consisting of your ass, with your wallet still attached, on a platter.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[Anonymous Coward]

...jumping jee-ho-se-fat ye-haw

Heh. Laurence Fishburne used to be one of the greatest of contemporary actors. Time was, if you called him "Larry," he'd beat the shit out of you. Now, he's doing staged commercials for DirecTV with the likes of Andy Garcia and Danny Devito (major celebs, I tellya).

Laurence, what happened? Find a good script and get back to asskicking, my man.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[JDBrechtel]

I do not think you're right on that first point, though I may not be a lawyer.

If you were right that buying from a vendor that was doing illegal activities made you guilty by default then these cases would be open and shut for DirecTV and they wouldn't be losing them left and right (the ones that go to court that is). Instead, they're being told by the judges that "MERE POSSESSION" is not proof of signal theft. It doesn't matter WHERE you got the LEGAL device from, it is still a LEGAL device.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[JDBrechtel]

"though I may not be a lawyer" ....heh I was thinking something else while typing. I am NOT a lawyer is what I mean.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[Freedom Bug]

True, but on the other hand if you bought your smartcard programmer from a site called www.hackdss.com I think there is a plausable argument that you might have purchaced said equipment to hack dss.

How about if that was because it was the only way to get one at a reasonable price? Most of the legitimate places that sell things like that are not set up to sell single units to consumers. You can pretend to be a real engineer actually designing products for sale and get yourself a free evaluation unit, or you can buy significant quantities. The middle ground is very difficult to find for stuff like that.

Bryan

Re:Dear DirecTV

[drinkypoo]

And as for your Blockbuster example, I'd be fairly happy about doing my little tiny infinitesmal bit to maintaining the free market and taking my custom elsewhere and telling everyone I know to do the same. You'd be surprised how fast that sort of thing can result in a consumer backlash.

You'd also be surprised at how slow it can result in nothing at all... See my sig :)

In many places, Blockbuster is the only game in town. Most small video rental places really haven't caught onto the whole DVD thing yet, it's expensive. And if the choice is between blockbuster and hollywood, well, I know where I'm going. Even that "Game Crazy" store is no draw, have you been in there? They have about as much video game selection as a 7-11.

Re:Dear DirecTV

[Igmuth]

Though the legality of lockpicks does vary by jurisdiction, so that may not be the best example to use.

I have to say...

[Zog The Undeniable]

On a scale of major crimes, this one is seen by Joe Schmoe in the same serious vein as crossing at a "Don't Walk" light. Apparently a contributory factor to the collapse of ITV Digital in the UK was that hundreds of thousands of Scots were using pirate viewing cards, sold openly on Glasgow and Edinburgh street markets, and not paying a penny to ITV. There's a huge appetite out there for "free" TV as subscription TV is seen as overpriced - considering you get even more adverts than on free-to-air TV.

Significant that it was Fox who carried the article though - they have something to lose ;-)

Re:I have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live near glasgow and it's a cottage industry locally; pirate games/dvds/software, cable boxes/sky cards, chipping xboxes/ps2's etc etc.

Thats what happens when you get fairly savvy ex electronics workers sacked by IBM/National Semiconductor/Motorola etc etc...

Re:I have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

The worm that turned. :D

Its also how competitors spring up.

Re:I have to say...

[fruey]

Well I kind of agree, but I don't think you have to be too savvy - in Morocco, there was a massive industry of pirated movies, smartcards, mod chips... and those guys were just self taught entrepreneurs. With basic intelligence and some trial and error it's not that hard to get set up.

Re:I have to say...

[doogieb]

Here's a link to The Register's story about the Christmas raid on Ingliston market.

Re:I have to say...

[ShadowBlasko]

"This is the stupidest sig in the history of /., and that takes some doing. I believe the *japanese* bombed pearl harbour."

You, my friend, are uncultured swine, and would not know a good line from a great movie when it kicked you in the ass.

Clicky Clicky

Re:I have to say...

[pangloss]

that's because the axis powers are so tricksy. only zog the undeniable can lead us past this tomfoolery.

Re:I have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "Animal House" and not "Stripes", but the uncultured swine comment can stand. It was part of John 'Bluto' Blutarsky's (played by John Belushi) motivational speech to inspire the frat to sabotage the homecoming parade.

Re:I have to say...

[ShadowBlasko]

Actually, if I am not entirely mistaken, the line exists in both movies.

in Stripes, unless I am totally wrong here, It is when they are in the hangar, (or preparing to go to the hangar) for the all night cram before parade inspection in the morning.

It somewhat stands to reason, because both movies share many of the same cast members, and well, lets face it, they were just having a blast making it.

Re:I have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

you have a point, but have you tried chipping a PS2 with some of the new chips? you need nimble fingers...

damn - why can't I log into /. today i'm losing great karma points!! ;)

Re:I have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

*stripes* is culture? Wow. A use of the word culture I wasn't previously aware of.

Re:I have to say...

[Zog The Undeniable]

The .wav from "Animal House" should explain all...

Re:I have to say...

[jxs2151]

OMG..... you are so dumb.

Re:I have to say...

[camzacid]

2 bad the the germans didnt bomb pearl harbour

Re:I have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

He is quoting the movie "Animal House", dumass. Its a joke.

Re:I have to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are entirely mistake

Quality

[rf0]

But was there anything worth watching on cable in the first place?

Rus

Re:Quality

[jkeegan]

Yes.

She's paying 70-bucks a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Boggle!!! Do people really do that??? Are they really that desperate for television??? Don't they have lives to get on with???

Re:She's paying 70-bucks a month

[Luigi30]

We pay $60 for 300 channels and $40 more for cable internet. Yum, Roadrunner.

Re:She's paying 70-bucks a month

[ameoba]

Have you looked at the price on some of those "season pass" style sports packages? You know... the ones that give you every game the league plays... We're talking HUNDREDS of dollars.

Scrambled Descramblers

[AndroidCat]

I wonder if these jerks were any relation to the ones who keep spamming me for "completely legal" descrambling devices?

The fact that they hijacked someone else's computer to send me that "completely legal" message would be a tip-off if all the other signs failed.

Re:Scrambled Descramblers

[arivanov]

AHEM. I hope they are the same and they get some extra time in the Gaol. It is the third most annoying advert after the thickness and the friday entertainment.

firing into the crowd whilst demanding applause?

[Anonymous Coward]

seems to ?work? here & there, for some, for a while.

you know things are deteriorating when your 'customers' consider themselves hostages whoare having their pockets picked, under threat of georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi softwar gangster payper liesense stock markup fraud execrable 'litigation', should they attempt to escape/turn the channel.

Dear stupid fuckheads

[Lord Bitman]

There are very simple methods by which the box on the street, which you own, can be forced to not send signals into my home.
Sorry, though, as any signals which you broadcast directly into my home without any contract between us, I will do whatever I want with.
Anyone who thinks they shouldnt be allowed to recieve whatever signals are being broadcast into their home is an idiot. I'm not hacking in to your box, or touching your property at all. If you beam signals directly toward me, you don't get to complain when I use them.
Stop sending signals to the homes of non-subscribers and you will absolutely never have this problem again. You are not allowed to take away basic rights of perception in order to save a few bucks.

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, stupid fuckheads run our country. Details at 11.

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Urkki]

• There are very simple methods by which the box on the street, which you own, can be forced to not send signals into my home.

Such as?

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Max Romantschuk]

You seem to be trolling, but anyway...

Stop sending signals to the homes of non-subscribers and you will absolutely never have this problem again. You are not allowed to take away basic rights of perception in order to save a few bucks.

Stop sending the signals... um... how? If you have even the faintest idea how broadcasting networks work you know that this is not feasible.

The signals are encrypted for a reason, you pay for a service, and get the decryption harware as part of the deal. If you decrypt the signal by other means you're stealing off a service you haven't paid for.

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Lord Bitman]

The signal is currently "scrambled" in such a way that anyone who pays them for their "de-scrambling" box can get back at the signals. These start out as unscrambled signals, and are then broadcast scrambled. By placing the scrambler at the street-level, they could scramble on a per-line basis (that is, destroy the signal so that not even their boxes can de-scramble them, which is easier than a controlled "scrambling"). This may have been rocket-science 30 years ago, but that's just not the case now.

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two very simple ways to stop the transmittion of infromation over a hard wired data network, which is what these cable systems are. First they could turn off the interface on their side of the network. But even simpler is to just unplug the damn wire on their end, like they do in my apartment building.

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Lord Bitman]

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to not do things. Why, I'm not sending you any scrambled TV channels RIGHT NOW! And I'm hardly lifting a finger.

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Lord Bitman]

of all these, that one was troll? Come on now, it's true! :)
I'm really not sending him scrambled TV signals!
Okay, fine, I just wrote that one quickly before getting in the shower. I'm out now, I'll give you some thoughts.

Do you have any idea how, say, a TV works? Why do you think it is that out of all those channels, your TV only shows you one at a time?
That certainly sounds like it is quite possible to limit what signals are sent. Of course you may then yell "But they can't tune to a specific channel at the street! You'd only get one channel per house!!"
This, of course, would be completely incorrect. There is no grand physical law which says that a tuner must tune to a specific frequency range which is equal to a "channel". It can just as well tune to 70 channels at a time, leaving the other channels to be shunted on by an installer when he comes to your house. Yeah, it wouldnt be as simple as saying "Here is something to look at, but don't look at it because I'll see that you're thrown in jail if you do!" but then, does saying that even make sense?

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is possible to stop sending the signals to a person's house. I was recently annoyed at my $100 cable/internet bill and was going to downgrade my service from whatever was just a step above basic back down to basic.

They told me it would cost $15, so they could send out a service man to install a "part" that would filter out the channels they normally send descrambled.

----

What I'm guessing it boils down to is that it is too much hassel and expense, especially when the cable industry was young, to keep track of and update those little $15 boxes to millions of people.

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, though, as any signals which you broadcast directly into my home without any contract between us, I will do whatever I want with. Anyone who thinks they shouldnt be allowed to recieve whatever signals are being broadcast into their home is an idiot.

I hope they get a film of you calling eveyone idiots when they drag you off to jail. I can just see you in court, "Your Honor, you are a fuckhead idiot if you think this law is a law."

Re:Dear stupid fuckheads

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong, the technology exists.

It's a pair of pliers.

Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[leoaugust]

Gwenice Garnett was happy to hear about the bust as she stopped by Comcast this evening to upgrade to digital cable. She's paying 70-bucks a month. Garnette says, "I pay a substantial amount of money for my cable and if I have to pay, they should have to pay!"

Wow, with people like this all the cable company has to do is offer a prize of $25.00.00.00 (Twenty Five $$$$$$ only) and every "pirate" is going to be rat-ted out in no time.

More money will of course be made when the Rat gets on the TV shows "selling" their story of how they bravely turned in every Tom, Jane, and Harry to collect their Mega Bounty.

And with DEA conspiring to get the Kids to rat on their parents, the determination of the Assistant US Attorney should be in doubt to no one ..

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[Stiletto]

What I find scary is that there are people out there willing to pay 70 dollars a month for TELEVISION!

Sure it also includes the "premium" channels but:

70 dollars a month for the privilege of being able to suckle at the electric teat every night???

INSANE.

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[dekashizl]

70 dollars a month for the privilege of being able to suckle at the electric teat every night???
INSANE.

Not nearly as delicious as the delicate aquamarine teat of Slashdot. mmmm... /.teat...

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[silentbozo]

At $70 a month, it makes several concurrent accounts with netflix, and a pair of rabbit-ears look like a bargain. Sheesh, does anyone really watch that much TV?

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[Fat Casper]

70 dollars a month for the privilege of being able to suckle at the electric teat every night???

I pay more, but my cable modem is part of the deal. I use that more than the TV. There are only seven or eight channels that I watch, but the buck or so a day isn't that bad a deal. The other part of the bill, the buck or so a day for the cable modem, is even less of a bother. While I'd love to pay for the channels I want instead of the hundreds (including music) I get, what you're really paying for is the connection, not the content. Kind of like the internet, you know?

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[FreeMars]

Stiletto says:
70 dollars a month for the privilege of being able to suckle at the electric teat every night???

INSANE.

Now, $70/month for DSL, on the other hand...

(Yeah, I have static IPs and faster-than-minimum service.)

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[Anonymous Coward]

...if I have to pay, they should have to pay!...

Dear Lady, Wht don't you mind your fucking business?

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[Anonymous Coward]

"I pay a substantial amount of money for my cable and if I have to pay, they should have to pay!"

It's not their fault that she's dumb enough to get screwed by the local cable monopoly. "I'm getting scammed and so should you!" Of course, the honest way to go would be to use another TV service (satellite, dvd rental, airwaves, etc) instead of descrambling cable.

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[Anonymous Coward]

$1*30*2 70. :-P

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh... $1*30*2<70. :-P

Re:Cable Company to Offer $25 Reward ....

[Fat Casper]

"Eh... $1*30*2{70. :-P"

Eh... ...the buck or so a day...

$1.25*30*2>70
$1.30*30*2>70
$1.50*30*2>70

You cowards are so pathetically stupid.

Dude ... All Scotsmen are tight fisted men..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be surprised if they even paid for soap..

Re:Dude ... All Scotsmen are tight fisted men..

[almightyjustin]

And if they aren't...they're not true Scotsmen. ;)

Stupid question...

[Omicron32]

Did any customer actually fall for their 'legal disclaimer?'

Well, if they made $10 million I guess at least someone did.

Re:Stupid question...

[swaic]

Hahaha. Nice sig. This just made my day.

Bloated Prices

[Saint Mitchell]

I was going to get Comcast at my new house. Then when I called to find out what it would cost me for "basic" digital cable + internet. $120+ a month. I about fell out of my chair.

Since I had made up my mind I wasn't going to swallow that pill, I decided to mess with the guy. I asked im if he knew why they couldn't say fuck on basic cable. "I don't know". Well, it's because technically it's a FREE service. We pay for the access to the cable, the programming is FREE. This is how HBO gets away with things like Real Sex, you PAY for the service. So, my question is why are you jacking up the price when you pay nothing for it? "Well, sir, that is our price. I have no control over what we charge. Can I set up an install date for you?" Maybe, can you tell me if there is an equipment rental charge in there somewhere. "Yes sir." Can I guy buy a cable box so I don't have to rent one from you. "No sir, that is illegal. Can I take your order for service, sir" No, no you can't.

Oh how I miss Time Warner. I never thought the day would come when I would say that. It is indeeed a sad day. I've even ordered DSL from the evil phone company. Did I move to bizzaro world and didn't know it?

Re:Bloated Prices

[Skater]

That's about what I pay Cox, but that includes a DVR rental and fee for service.

I don't think it's that much. The digital cable is something like $60/month and the internet service is $35; the remainder is the DVR rental and service fees, plus taxes, of course.

--RJ

Re:Bloated Prices

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I move to bizzaro world and didn't know it?

Do religious people knock on your door and ask you to tell them about God? That would be one of the warning signs.

Re:Bloated Prices

[El Torico]

For about 3 months at that rate, you can buy your own mini-dish system that allows you to scan a considerable number of satellites for Free to Air (FTA) channels. Since I currently live in Italy, I can pick up RAI1, 2, and 3, TVE, BBC World, and a host of other channels on Hotbirds1-5 and Telecom2C. Yes, the programming is limited, in many different languages, and a lot of it is pure junk, but there is an option.

Re:Bloated Prices

[lostindenver]

Just get the cable modem for 45.00 and hook up your tv you will get basic cable. They only filter out above channel 75 and the pay channels that you need a decoder for. At least in denver that's what i do.

Re:Bloated Prices

[Saint Mitchell]

I used to do that with Time Warner. With Comcast, you only get about 10 channels, and they are fuzzy. If you want _just_ internet then it's $60 plus taxes, etc.

Re:Bloated Prices

[Creepy]

Yeah - I had basically the same - and Comcast was jacking up the price of my package again, so I decided it was time to try Satellite.

Before:
Phone - Comcast $45/mo (was $29 when first obtained)
Internet - Comcast $50/mo ($60 w/o basic cable)
Cable - Digital Silver package - $50/mo
net total: $145/mo

Switch (all numbers rounded):
Phone - Qwest $40/mo (incumbent required by ISP)
Internet - SpeakEasy - $70/mo (1500/768 w/2 static IPs - for 1500/256 it's $60 - promotional rates go through Dec 31)
Dish network $40/mo (with DVR) - basically same
package as cable w/o a few channels like G4. 4 free months of HBO/Sho ($60/mo if I keep - promotional rates through Jan 31). Yes, I added local channels.
total: $150/mo

BUT promotions give 3 months of Speakeasy for $20 and 4 months of dish for free. That makes up the difference for the first year AND I was just informed that cable would be going up $5 in January to add a bunch more channels I will never watch. I get 2 STATIC IPs with speakeasy, something Comcast told me "no, we will never, ever offer that for residential service". I can finally register a domain and call it my own (if there are any left).

Switching my phone back gave me more features at less price. Incidentally, this same package was $45 through Qwest before I left them.

Dish seemed to be the best for me (I went with the top 100, but get a free downgrade after my 4 months, if I want it), but there are others like DirecTV, and all seem cheaper than cable and offer decent packages (unless you want the Comcast-only channels like G4). Disadvantage: no built in receiver, so the more TVs you've got, the more converter boxes you need to add. I have one TV I watch, and another I sometimes record shows on while the main TV is in use. Since I will have a DVR, I don't think this will be a problem anymore (depending on if there's synch issues with programs like football that usually overrun their slot).

Re:Bloated Prices

[lostindenver]

Must be different areas then. I have 65 plus channels all but the very high channels are crystal clear. I even get the HiDEF channels.

Re:Bloated Prices

[mekkab]

FOr me DSL costs just about as much, with a $200 install fee (or something in that $200 neighborhood) for slower speeds (I get T1 from my cable modem, I guess no one in my neighborhood uses it!). It doesn't make sense! Cable seemed to come out cheaper.

So I get the basic, the plus, I added HBO, and Cable modem. I don't like digital (I think its 300 channels you don't get and 80 you do, most of which suck) so my bill is right around $100.

So $100 for T1 speeds and HBO. And their uptime has been pretty good*. yeah, that's worth it for me.

*- When DC was hit by that hurricane in Sept, they were down for a few hours. Some neighborhoods were without power for a week+. Thats good service. Last winter when Maryland was in a State of Emergency due to all the snow I telecommuted all week. Yep- I never lost cable.

Re:Bloated Prices

[DotDotSlasher]

Well, it's because technically it's a FREE service. We pay for the access to the cable, the programming is FREE.

But they aren't actually free. ESPN wants $2.40 per user per month. Obviously ESPN would be one of the most expensive channels. Lower tier channels want less. Pure advertising channels probably pay for the exposure (or there are kickbacks). Even the new NFL channel wants $0.10 per household. Who's going to watch NFL-TV Feb - Aug? But that's why cable is so expensive -- all those extra channels each cost the channel company money per household. Every station wants a cut of your cable bill.

Re:Bloated Prices

[HTH NE1]

Can I guy buy a cable box so I don't have to rent one from you.

I sure would like to own my cable box instead of renting it. Especially since next year the monthly fee for cable boxes is going up for the same service. What, firmware updates? You mean those things that turn my cable box off in the middle of the night so my TiVo records "Press 'CBL' to turn on your cable box" and a black screen for an hour instead of my show? And always seem to happen whenever I decide to go somewhere for the weekend?

In fact, the only thing that went down in price was the frelling remote, by one cent!

When are the universal digital cable boxes supposed to come out? The cable companies are supposed to be standardizing so that we can own our own boxes!

I own my own DSL modem.

Re:Bloated Prices

[Anonymous Coward]

My promotional period with Comcast just ended, and they sent me a $120 bill for the same thing: digital cable, HBO, and internet. That was too much for me; I'm willing to pay ~$40 for the internet, but $80 for TV is nuts.

So, I switched to basic cable ($50, including internet). My wife returned the digital box, and they didn't give her an analog box like we expected, so I just hooked the cable up to my TV. Low and behold, I got nearly all the channels up to 99, including HBO! I thought "This is good."

Two days later, a service rep shows up with an analog box. I told him "I've already got the cable through my TV." His response was "I have to hook up the box to limit you to basic." Damn. I let him in, and he hooks up the box, but it's still getting all the channels. On the way out he says that it may go off for a few minutes, while he 'filters' something at the pole.

I went out and came back later, and the box had reset. Now, all it gets are the first 35 channels. I thought "This sucks", so I unplugged the box, and hooked the cable directly to the TV again.

:-)

All my channels are back (up to 99) including HBO. It's been almost a week, and no change.

I had CableVision where I used to live, and when I tried this same trick, nearly every channel was scrambled, except for broadcast and QVC. But with Comcast, the only scrambled channels are SHO and MAX, and the rest come through with nothing more than a cable-ready TV. All the box does is restrict you, or let you watch a couple of pay channels. It's like voluntarily wearing handcuffs.

The ironic thing is, now that I have access to all these channels for free, by choosing to not use the cable box I'm renting, I'm watching much less TV than I used to. The digital's channel guide was like crack; it's much more addictive than ordinary channel surfing, because it gives you so much more info about what's on. All I watch now is some Bravo shows (yeah, Queer Eye) and the Comedy channel. (South Park)

Re:Bloated Prices

[Saint Mitchell]

But if that is true then the FCC needs to back off. It was ruled that over the free(as in beer) mediums have the code of conduct so to speak. You can't say certain words, can't do certain things, etc. HBO gets around this because you pay for it. If we are in fact paying for these channels then it is a premium service and should have to live by the over the air style rules. Maybe they don't anymore, they just do for some reason.

Re:Bloated Prices

[Saint Mitchell]

I too own my DSL modem. Which brand are you using if you can upload as fast as down? I thought that was capped at the CO somehow. I get about 1.3 down and probably half that up.

$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[nich37ways]

Gwenice Garnett was happy to hear about the bust as she stopped by Comcast this evening to upgrade to digital cable.

She's paying 70-bucks a month.

Garnette says, "I pay a substantial amount of money for my cable and if I have to pay, they should have to pay!"

Living in Australia digital tv and all the joys of interactive tv and movies on demand is still to be rolled out AFAIK anyway, I believe it is due sometime next year

However I find it hard to believe that people are so willing to pay so much to watch advertisements and it will surely get worse in the future.

*put on tinfoil hat*

Digital tv means providers can finally start to monitor who is watching what and when, this means they get to build up massive databases of viewing patterns. Combine this with an increased level of profiling and we get targeted advertising. The great joy of been told what we want according to what we watch and whatever random data the advertising companies have bought.

If anyone out there has digital tv, they are monitoring you, they will use the data to directly advertise to you and to take as much of your money as possible.

*takeoff tinfoil hat*

Anyone who believes this will not happen is at best naive and worst extremely foolish. I know it will not happen in the next year, but the ground work is been laid now and I see no sensible way to avoid it unless people refuse to watch digital tv, an unlikely proposition or it is legislated by the government (an unlikely thing)

Anyone with any ideas on how to try and escape the future of advertising hell..

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[Cesare Ferrari]

Well, here in the UK we have digital TV broadcast over standard aerials. It's being used to squeeze more channels into less bandwidth so that the spare capacity can be sold off for other purposes.

Anyhow, this doesn't lead to targetted advertising, since the service doesn't have any upstream capability. It does mean that we get more channels of rubbish into our homes though, so it isn't all bad.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[fuzzybunny]

Actually, I don't think the problem is with advertising per se, or even with targeted advertising.

I'd rather think that the primary objections people (well at least I) have are:

Getting advertising despite paying for a service (for example, with cable TV, or TV license fees (YUCK!) in some European countries.

Ways in which "targeting" data is obtained and handled--i.e. resold.

I don't mind advertising targeted towards me, as long as I (a) get to pick what's sent my way (I rather enjoy some well-done ads, and I like seeing ads for stuff that I'm currently in the market for.) and (b) I know how my data's being handled.

The first is pretty straightforward--dealt with by "opt-in" advertising and other ploys. To be honest, I don't care about the occasional commercial break during a TV show; my attention span isn't that great anyway, and it gives me time to go get food, check my mail, chat with my girlfriend (which I do during the show anyway), take a dump, whatever. And when I _do_ have TV running as background noise during dinner, I'd prefer beer commercials to tampon/yeast infection ads thankyouverymuch (you'd be surprised at how many of these you get on TV during dinnertime here.)

Nor do I mind ads in games, as long as it's unintrusive, on billboards or in newspapers (except for the 50 pages of ads at the front of every magazine). It's passive, so I can choose to tune in or tune out--unlike spam, I don't have to actively hit 'delete' to ignore them.

The second problem is a bit nastier, and that's where I tend to agree that monitoring and pattern collection is bad. I don't trust _anyone_ to handle my personal information, including such apparently banal things as my viewing habits, in a manner I'd describe as "responsible."

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[Mr_Silver]

Digital tv means providers can finally start to monitor who is watching what and when, this means they get to build up massive databases of viewing patterns. Combine this with an increased level of profiling and we get targeted advertising. The great joy of been told what we want according to what we watch and whatever random data the advertising companies have bought.

Actually I quite like the idea of targetted advertising. I'd be more interested in adverts of technology gadgets, restaurants, sports and mens fashion than be fed adverts of sanitary towels, washing up liquids, baby toys (that really wet themselves) and pension schemes.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[sahonen]

Well, I don't think it's gonna be that bad. Targetted ads doesn't mean they're going to hypnotise you and make you buy their products, and it doesn't mean more ads than before. You get the same amount of advertising, only it's for stuff you're ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN. For one, it means no more watching tampon commercials, or commercials for children's toys while you're watching cartoons.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[Fat Casper]

Getting advertising despite paying for a service

You're paying for your internet connection, but you understand the need of sites like Slashdot to have advertisements. When you're paying for your cable connection, ask yourself where the TV content providers are supposed to get money from. My ISP doesn't give a dime to Slashdot, The Onion or any of my favorite sites. Even the Goatse guy doesn't get any money from them. I can't pretend that my cable bill supports DIY or Speed.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[Roofus]

If anyone out there has digital tv, they are monitoring you

You are so full of it. Might it happen in the future? Maybe. Is it happening now? No.

Once the digital cable box has been provisioned and 'hit', it does not talk back to the headend when you change a channel, since it already has the access list in memory. Do you have any idea how much memory one of those boxes has? Not enough to be recording your viewing habits.

The above statement doesn't apply to services like VOD and PPV, since when you order one of the those the box does talk back to the headend. But of course, if that really bothers you that much, do you boycott Blockbuster and all movie rental stores as well? Because they know what you watch! Ooh!

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[internewt]

Getting advertising despite paying for a service (for example, with cable TV, or TV license fees (YUCK!) in some European countries. Here in the UK our TV licence funds the BBC, who do not have adverts (apart from plugs for things like other programs, their website...) on any of their TV channels or the radio. I am perfectly happy to pay 10UKP/month for some advert free TV and radio.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[arivanov]

You'd be surprised at how many of these you get on TV during dinnertime here.

This is intentional. Your disgust increases the chance that:

You remember when you are less unfortunate

You break a dinner conversation to express your disgust and focus the attention of someone who already is.

So it is calculated and intended.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[awol]

Digital tv means providers can finally start to monitor who is watching what and when, this means they get to build up massive databases of viewing patterns.

Not in my world buddy! here in the UK, I have free to air digital TV and there ain't no way for them to tell which channel I am watching at any given time. I am not sure about the technology of determining which channels are being watched without some kind of "upstream" connection in addition to just the decoder, but even so the broadcast version I am using certainly can't be monitored so the Digital TV itself does not automatically give the montioring of viewing information about which you speak.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[fuzzybunny]

TV content providers make money by selling that content to TV stations. TV stations charge cable providers to allow them to carry their signal.

Viewing a website is not my prime motivation for using my internet connection--it is not the raison d'etre for the internet. I use my internet connection primarily to check mail, download things, etc--that incurs _bandwidth_ costs, which is what my ISP fees pay for. And the ISP fees of the guy on the other end of the line.

You can't really make the comparison between internet and TV--it's an interactive medium (I hate that word) versus a passive one. A better analogy would be someone setting up a booth in a department store which gave away drinks but forced you to look through catalogues while you're consuming. It's not the primary purpose of my visit, and by going to their booth, I agree to look at their stuff. Sounds fine to me.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[DingoBueno]

If anyone out there has digital tv, they are monitoring you, they will use the data to directly advertise to you and to take as much of your money as possible.

While I don't want to be monitored, I don't mind targetted advertising. Let them do it anonymously. I'd rather see ads for new-to-market products and services that interest me rather than a lot of garbage that does not.

This is, for the most part, good stuff. It's what makes the economy run. At least in the US, we could use a boost. I have a job so I can make money and give it away in exchange for things I want.

I honestly don't care if advertisers know every single thing about my life. What's the worst they're gonna do? I get 30 spams per hour. They're not gonna do anything worse.

And remember, the more tinfoil you buy, the better the economy. Just keep those hats off until a real threat comes around.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[Fat Casper]

Viewing a website is not my prime motivation for using my internet connection--it is not the raison d'etre for the internet.

You're here on Slashdot, and your ISP's bill doesn't pay their bills. I live out in the woods, so I need to pay a Cable Service Provider to bring me TV. The TV stations that I am now paying to watch aren't getting paid, unless they're along the lines of HBO. So they sell advertising, which I don't like, but understand.

I don't think that TV is much more passive than the internet. Our contributions to the internet are more quickly seen, but it's still passive as hell.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[fuzzybunny]

Yeah but you're missing my point--I come here to get the "free" content, in exchange for which, I agree implicitly to view their ads. That's fine. It's something I do on top of my "normal" use of the Internet.

I guess your TV system works different from mine then, since TV stations here (Switzerland) are paid by cable providers. Think of the TV stations as a combination of resellers and providers of content.

Naturally, if you have regular non-satellite broadcast TV, the situation changes radically.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell? More like Heaven! ANYTHING that will stop FDS (femenine deoderant spray) and maxipad advertisements coming into my house gets my approval!

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[the_rev_matt]

I'm still not sure what's so terrible about targeted advertising. I'll only see ads for things I might be interested in. That's awful! No more ads for Viagra? No more ads for Depends Adult Diapers? What ever will I do?!?!?!

They aren't forcing me to buy anything, they're simply tailoring their ads to things I might want. Good. That's sort of the point of technology, to improve people's lives. And I consider NOT seeing ads for luxury cruises, mutual funds, and pay-per-view sporting events to be an improvement in my life.

That's why I have TiVo ;)

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[T5]

But you forget that you've got the trucks driving around the neighborhood checking to see how many TV sets you have so you'll pay the appropriate tax. Free? I think not. Anonymous? I think not. No way to tell what you're watching? Maybe not directly for the provider, but not that hard for a government bent on monitoring its citizens.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[Anonymous Coward]

In the U.S., at least, I think it is illegal for cable companies to collect customer viewing information.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[h0tb0x]

**Disclaimer: This applies in north america, I can't speak for other places.**

I work for a cable company and I can explain why you see commercials even though you "pay" for the service. It's quite simple actually: If you live near enough to where a given broadcast is coming from you can pick it up using a plain antenna. If you don't live close enough then you need a really big antenna or you won't be able to get the broadcast.

People seem to forget that the cable company doesn't actually provide the content that you receive. They are basically providing you with a huge antenna system so you can pull in programming from further away then you could with a regular arial.

Networks make their money by selling advertising time. This money pays for the shows they produce plus operating costs etc. The cable company has to buy rights from the networks to air their signal and some of them are pretty expensive.

The cable company doesn't get paid for the commercials you watch. Their job is to provide the system that brings you the broadcast from abroad. This system costs money to support and maintain and this is why you pay for cable television and still have to watch commercials.

If the cable company had to produce the content themselves you can bet your cable bill would be much much higher than it is now.
-----------------

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[DJStealth]

Speaking of ads, this bust means one less piece of spam a day in many people's mail boxes.

Re:$70 a month to watch advertisements??

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwahahahaha. I love memberships, because I get to screw with people's databases. Blockbuster thinks I'm gay because I rented Notorious C.H.O. and the Hot Chick :)

w00t!

It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[Powercntrl]

A quick search on Google reveals that Digital Cable services have not been hacked. Indeed the only cable descramblers that are/were sold can be broken down into 4 catagories:

1. Analog filters
These removed a signal that was placed on a nearby frequency to that of the channel the cable company wanted to "scramble". I'm not even sure if this old form of protection is even used anymore. The end-user benefit of this protection was you did not need a cable box.

2. Chips/jumpers
Usually the channel is scrambled by missing a sync signal and you're provided by the cable company with a decoder box that can selectively re-create it. Adding a chip or jumpers tricks the box into decoding channels you didn't pay for. This method of analog protection is also quite old.

3. Digital cable filters
Blocks your digital cable decoder from communicating with the mother ship. Briefly get PPV movies for free, then you can't order any more until you remove the filter (at which point it phones home and you get billed anyway). Similar in effect to unplugging the phone line from a DirecTV box.

4. Cable TV "decoder" boxes
Found online and in your typical junk magazines... These are basically just an external tuner and remodulator to make a non-cable-ready TV (the old kind that just get VHF and UHF only) analog cable ready.

If this business was really hacking digital cable, that would sure be some big news... Most likely they were selling old analog crap or snake oil products.

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[Troed]

Digital services have been hacked for a very long time in Europe, I don't see what would be different across the atlantic.

You know, rewriting smartcard content can get you really far - and there's nog such thing as a bug free program/smartcard.

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[The Infamous Grimace]

There's another way as well. Don't know if the cable co.s still do this, but I knew someone who, all they needed to do to get cable into their house, was remove a 'gapper' that was screwed in at the house. In other words, the only thing that was preventing a connection was the lack of a physical connection. A little cyclinder about an inch long, screwed into the cable line where it connected to the house, and all it did was create a gap in the line. My friend removed said gapper, and had free cable. Can't remember if he got premium channels as well, I seem to think that they were still scrambled.

(tig)

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[Roofus]

At the moment, digital cable boxes in the US don't use smartcards. Everything is internal to the digital box.

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[Roofus]

The gapper you refer to was just a filter installed on the line. It attenuates the signal to the point where it's too low for a TV to tune to. The frequency range on the filter was probably from 52Mhz to around 400/500 MHz. Anything above that is usually reserved for cable modem downstream and digital cable, both of which are useless unless you have the ability to put yourself into the cable company's provisioning databases.

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[Anonymous Coward]

no, this is called a terminator. it just physically disconnects the cable line, and then provides a screw connection to store the coax cable and prevent the fitting from being exposed to the elements. this has nothing at all to do with digital service, which as of yet, hasnt been pirated.

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[taniwha]

it's probably a placeholder/terminator for the spot where the filter goes (or used to go) for 'basic' cable - basicly a low pass filter that only let channels ~31 through - or the notch filter that gave you access to scrambled analog channels (this is going away as they move to digital - my neighborhood took this down a month ago as they built out the fiber to our block)

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[taniwha]

the smart card interface is a weak point - it's communication with the settop is what's usually been broken for satellite systems. The actualy on-the-air encryption is usually some form of 3DES with keys that change all thetime. In the US most settops use embedded encryption - no wires to the outside where you can plug in something to fake it out.

It's that easy-access smartcard port that makes digital piracy a commercial success - no one's going to make a business of selling people kits to solder into their settops

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[Algan]

Well, that's really funny, cuz I am in the US and my digital cable box, USES a smartcard...

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[Troed]

no one's going to make a business of selling people kits to solder into their settops

Why not, considering it was a huge market for DVD players (mine's chipped) and has been and definitely is when it comes to games consoles.

In short, you're wrong.

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[taniwha]

honestly people who are willing to take soldering irons and invade their consumer hardware are not a "huge market", at least not compared to say the market consisting of people willing to plug a different smart card into the slot in the back of their satellite box.

sure you could sell a few - but it's illegal in a way that chipping DVD players is not (there's a local cable company with lawyers in your town), you have to do it in secret, off the back of a truck so to speak, can't provide tech support when things go wrong etc etc

Re:It was a scam anyway (surprise!)

[Troed]

You _really_ need to read about the outside world sometime. Companies _are_ doing this - and the law is at this very moment getting harsher in a lot of places because of it. The market is _huge_.

'I'm guessing you took the five dollar law class..

[Channard]

.. instead of the ten dollar one.' as the Gord would say. Certainly it seems that there are some completely loopy disclaimers that crop up when grey or illegal activities are involved. There's:

'These discs are only provided as backups and you must own the original game.' - which raises the question, why isn't the person backing up the game themselves?

Or 'These roms are legal to download provided you delete them within 24 hours' - despite there being no such law.

Or my personal favourite.. 'If you are affiliated with any government, or ANTI-Piracy group, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), local or state police or government agencies, any record label or recording company or distribution company or group or any other related group or were formally a worker of one you cannot enter this web site, cannot access any of its files and you cannot view any of the pages contained herein. All the objects on this site are private property and are not meant for viewing or any other purposes other then bandwidth space. Do not enter whatsoever! If you enter this site you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995. That means that you cannot threaten our ISP(s) or any person(s) or company storing these files, cannot prosecute any person(s) affiliated with this page which includes family, friends or individuals who run or enter this web site.'. Wow. Well, that's the feds screwed then. Anyone got any examples of loopier disclaimers?

Of course they fell for it..

[arcanumas]

Did any customer actually fall for their 'legal disclaimer?'"

People have bought land in the moon and you are wondering if others would fall for that?

Re:Of course they fell for it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Wher can I find a realtor to hadle this?I am very interested in investing in some lunar properties.
Including cheese rights of course.

Re:Of course they fell for it..

[markxsd]

land in the moon

Actually my moon plot has been very useful...

1. A Nigerian is waiting my on my plot with my $10,000,000 in cash
2. The moon address means that I can get my Canadian lottery jackpot winnings absolutely tax free
3. Enlargement creams are 200% more effective in low gravity.

I'm offering you a once in a lifetime chance to take advantage of some these and countless other life-changing opportunities.
Sublet part of my lunar paradise, please paypal $50 to me now.

Re:'I'm guessing you took the five dollar law clas

[AndroidCat]

Anyone got any examples of loopier disclaimers?

"Are you a cop?"

mod parent up some more

[Anonymous Coward]

they are indeed fuckheads

Re:mod parent up some more

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, mod (grand)parent up past +5. Then it'll glow brightly, turn to dust and fall to the floor.

"Legal disclaimer"

[Zocalo]

Did any customer actually fall for their 'legal disclaimer?'. Sure they did; the same demographic of people that receives a "confidential email" from a Mr. Mobutu of Nigeria and parts with large sums of cash. However, it's far more likely that the majority of customers probably saw that and thought "yeah, right!", followed quickly by the thoughts "cheap cable!" and "where's my credit card?"

Re:"Legal disclaimer"

[gl4ss]

..which leads to another intresting question: why would you give your cc number to people you're fairly sure are criminals? buying from street markets with cash is another thing, the only thing you can lose is the cash(and the electricity network at home if the box is really bad).

-

Re:"Legal disclaimer"

[Hatta]

You don't have to be stupid to buy the disclaimer, just ignorant. After all there's no a priori reason to believe that doing a little math on a datastream that's being piped into my house should be illegal.

This story sucks.

[Matrix2110]

I happen to work for a TV station in the area and we reported it a week or so ago. I also happened to get a look at one of these cards and I can safely say they are very fragile in every since of the word. A very thin card, one chip. a couple of resistors, plus a one page of small print. No tech support.

I know what I am doing and I had a hard time with this thing.

And no, it never worked.

Move along, nothing to see here.

These rip-off artists milked a bunch of greedy people that got burned but did not dare turn them in.

Until, somebody got ticked off enough to turn everybody in.

I will leave it to Slashdot to calculate the odds of the squeal factor.

That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[WIAKywbfatw]

(OK, I going to get flamed to hell and back for posting this, but here goes nothing.)

This "if your signals penetrate my airwaves then they belong to me and I can do whatever I like with them" argument really is flawed.

Yes, if you were an island state that would hold true, but you're not, you're an American citizen (or the citizen of another country) and you're bound by the rules and laws of the country that you live in.

Now, if you live in the US, you have to play by the US government's rules. One of the rules says that killing someone is forbidden, and that if you kill someone then that's a crime and you have to pay for your crime.

Another one of the rules says that certain wavelengths of the RF spectrum belong to (or are for the exclusive use of) certain governmental organisations (eg, the US armed forces, police departments) or private corporations (eg, DirecTV). In the former case, these wavelengths are used without compensation, but in the latter case, the corporations concerned are paying for the right to exclusive use of those frequencies.

Just who are they paying? Well, directly, they are paying your government, and hence, indirectly, they are paying you/i>. So, although they might not be sending you personally a cheque (check) in the post, you are being paid for the use of those airwaves.

Now, if you disagree with this arangement, if you don't like any third party owning then the solution is simple: Lobby your Congressman and/or other representatives.

But, please, don't pretend that DirecTV or whoever has no right to be upset when you decode their signals without paying for their service. They have every right, and that right was sold to them by your government.

Obviously, this arrangement of rights between the individual, the government and the corporation will vary from country to country. (For example, if you're Canadian, then intercepting signals intended for the US market and doing with them whatever you want is legal, as determined by the Canadian legal system.)

But pretending that the law of the land can be ignored and that "if you beam signals directly toward me, you don't get to complain when I use them", and "you are not allowed to take away basic rights of perception in order to save a few bucks", are poor arguments that fail to take into account that the rights here (as determined by law) are with the transmitter and not the receiver.

Now feel free to retort. Just keep the personal insults out of it please?

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

This "if your signals penetrate my airwaves then they belong to me and I can do whatever I like with them" argument really is flawed.

Now, if you live in the US, you have to play by the US government's rules. One of the rules says that killing someone is forbidden

Just to let you know, in Texas you are not liable for killing someone who is in your house.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Go and fuck your mother, you stupid cunt.

The law is an ass. Legislating against radio waves is like legislating against magnetism or gravity. Fucking stupid.

Get a clue, you motherfucking retard.

Wow. How nice of you to read the last sentence of the post to which you were replying. Is it any wonder with such an insightful argument and eloquent turn of phrase that you chose to post this as an AC? Why be anonymous if you're so certain about the righteousness of your views?

The law might be an ass. But it is the law. And, the relevant law doesn't isn't "legislating against radio waves", it's legislating the ownership of particular frequencies.

I'm guessing that if you're so vehement that radio waves are public domain you don't have any objection to me tapping into your telephone conversations when you use a cordless or mobile phone? Or of me hacking into your home network via your wireless hub? Oh, you do mind?

You see, the law is there to protect you too.

Which would you rather have:

1. A society where you have no rights to privacy when you make a mobile phone call and where you can watch TV for free (at someone else's expense); or

2. One where you do have a right to privacy and you have to pay the market rate for services that you receive?

Make your mind up time. Let me know which you prefer. In the meantime, I'll go "get a clue", although it might take me some time as I'm clearly a "motherfucking retard" as you suggest.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Just to let you know, in Texas you are not liable for killing someone who is in your house.

I think that depends on the circumstances. If you get pissed off that your wife didn't put too much salt on your dinner or if the electrician that just fixed your short circuit gives you a bill that's $100 more than you were expecting to pay you don't automatically have the right to blow them away.

The right of self-defence, to respond with appropriate force when threatened, is different from the right to kill at will. Just to let you know.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Lord Bitman]

Since you went out of your way to ask nicely for no personal insults, I'd like to start out by saying you are an ugly son-of-a-whore, and anyone who ever liked you is a moron. (who the fuck asks for such things? Please try to keep your posts On-Topic!)

Now, your whole argument is "The government decides what is right and what is wrong"

Who could possibly argue against such a thing?
here is a link to a site whose entire premise is pretty much the opposite of that claim. Try reading it for a while, and maybe you'll find some insight.

Now, talking to your congressman is certainly an important part of the proccess of getting laws changed, but to say "It's the law, so don't complain!" is completely contrary to the system, is it not?

However, your use of the term "Airwaves" makes me think you didn't understand the concept of this article- we're talking about Cable here. A physical line which is going in to your house and mine. When you pay for some of cable, they start sending you every channel (even the ones you dont pay for).
This would be like someone handing you a book and telling you to only flip to certain pages or they could have you arrested.
Yes, they'd need to make special books with those additional pages removed in order to keep their business model without using the law to push people around, but it is not the government's place to protect an invalid business model.

Re: That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Black Parrot]

> This "if your signals penetrate my airwaves then they belong to me and I can do whatever I like with them" argument really is flawed.

Like the old Benny Hill skit where a woman leans over his fence and he thinks that gives him a right to grope her tits.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[gurumeditationerror]

A society where you have no rights to privacy when you make a mobile phone call

Do you believe you live in a society where you do have privacy?

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that if you're so vehement that radio waves are public domain you don't have any objection to me tapping into your telephone conversations when you use a cordless or mobile phone? Or of me hacking into your home network via your wireless hub? Oh, you do mind?

that's a big assumption. Personally, if i'm usinging a cordless or mobile phone, then it's up to me to be aware that there's the possability of those signals being recieved by someone other than who they are intended for. Same goes for wireless networks, that's why you have security methods. If I mind enough, then I am going to take steps on my own to secure a given signal.. or just not use it. I think in the long run, any business model that accepts this and works, not to try to put people in jail to succeed, but rather to make their OWN network secure, is going to be the one that comes out ahead. Especially if they then offer services that people want at a lower cost.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, umm, what if I were a mutant with eyes that were sensative to radiowave, and I could "see" them? Would I be in trouble for opening my eyes and looking at the DirectTV signals?

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[wooftronics]

Excellent point.

Saying that the argument is flawed because "the laws don't support it" is like saying that the pre-1865 slavery-abolitionist ideals were flawed because the laws didn't support them.

I kinda agree with the "who's getting hurt here?" argument... same thing with RIAA/MPAA... if you wouldn't be paying for it *anyway* then surely it's not really *wrong* to enjoy the content... and the opposite point is so ridiculously counter-intuitive.

(It conjures up images of some kind of paramilitary Ashcroft-esque "Fun Prevention Agency.")

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

This "if your signals penetrate my airwaves then they belong to me and I can do whatever I like with them" argument really is flawed.

Yes, if you were an island state that would hold true, but you're not, you're an American citizen (or the citizen of another country) and you're bound by the rules and laws of the country that you live in.

In the privacy of your own home you're even allowed to have teh ghey sex these days, didn't you know? Privacy, and doing whatever you please in your own home as long as you don't drag others in to it, being one of the right not enumerated in the constitution.

Descrambling anything on the airwaves that are being pumped through your brains anyway is nothing but math.

There is no obligation to anyone to make corporations profitable, whatever they may pay the government (either for "licensing" spectrum, of just straight donations/brides to political parties for bought legislation). You may like it or not, but many individuals have slightly different morals from whatever legislation big corporations have bought.

You may call it piracy, but it's the only counterbalance individuals realistically have against special interests that are free to spend enormous gobs of mony on a single issue; namely to get even more enormous gobs of money. That's why blockbuster is now railing against region-coding, which was an intellectually bankrupt proposition from the very beginning. Call it civil disobedience if you will, yes, even though no one doing it expects to be caught -- some laws are simply not enforceable to the absolute unless you live in a police (or should I say Disney) state, and that in itself is a valuable economic force.

Sometimes when people are treated sucky in a restaurant they don't tip. And then sometimes, they may even leave without paying. That's against the law, but even fine upstanding all-american people may do this once or twice in their lifetime..

I'm not even sure how you can strike such a righteous attitude against facts "perpetrated" in total privacy and anonymity, with no side effects other than some corporation losing some revenue (which is not guaranteed anyway, the US isn't a communist nation). How would you propose to make sure NO-ONE did it? Send in the jack booted thugs? I bet your polishing your boots as we speak.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Tired_Blood]

Another one of the rules says that certain wavelengths of the RF spectrum belong to (or are for the exclusive use of) certain governmental organisations (eg, the US armed forces, police departments) or private corporations (eg, DirecTV). In the former case, these wavelengths are used without compensation, but in the latter case, the corporations concerned are paying for the right to exclusive use of those frequencies.

There's a difference between passive and active use of a spectrum. You get in trouble for broadcasting/interfering over restricted bands, but not for just listening to it ... unless you can provide a counter-example.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[indros13]

I don't disagree with you in principle. However, most companies that use the airwaves do not in fact pay the (U.S.) government (and by connection, me) for the airwaves. The government just gives them away because they are stupid. Thus, regardless of the explicitly illegality of tapping a broadcast signal, there's no implicit payment going on. They got my air for free.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should save civil disobedience for the important fights. Applying it to something like this just cheapens it.

Part of democracy is accepting the fact that you might be wrong. It's not that the government decides what is right and wrong, but rather the government, acting as an instrument of society, decides what is acceptable and unacceptable. Sometimes we make bad decisions. However, you shouldn't sweat the small stuff.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[bobroberts]

Here's your counterexample, from http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2-wire.htm

Is it legal to intercept other people's cordless or cellular phone calls?

The Federal Communications Commission (www.fcc.gov) ruled that as of April 1994 no radio scanners may be manufactured or imported into the U.S. that can pick up frequencies used by cellular telephones, or that can be readily altered to receive such frequencies. (47 CFR Part 15.37(f)) The law rarely deters the determined eavesdropper, however.

Another federal law, the Counterfeit Access Device Law, was amended to make it illegal to use a radio scanner "knowingly and with the intent to defraud" to eavesdrop on wire or electronic communication. (18 USC 1029) Penalties for the intentional interception of cordless and cellular telephone calls range from fines to imprisonment depending on the circumstances. (18 USC 2511, 2701)

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Hatta]

s/stupid/corrupt/g

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but in Texas, it doesn't have to be self defence. If it's night and you "think" your property is in danger, you can use lethal force, even if just saying "stop" would be enough to protect your property.

I live in Texas and this happens way to often. One guy sat on his roof to ambush and shot down kids painting his fence. He shot one in the back as the kid fled. He actions were legal and clearly not self defence.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending signals directly to one's house over a wire is a bit different than the public airwaves.

Dumbass

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

"So far as the "law" is concerned, men may stand up and try to command the sun to rise and the tide to go out, but that doesn't make it "law." Man's laws are not well suited to the attempt to control religious and personal behaviour beyond that which is truly necessary to protect life, limb and property." -- Agustus Stanley Owsley III

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

It's better for you than the crack you ususally do.

T

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Tired_Blood]

Here's your counterexample, from http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2-wire.htm

That works, at least for my question of passive/active usage of a band. This thread has gotten off-topic.

I'd think that the usage of data transmitted through cable service is probably limited by contract and that would have the answer to all questions regarding descramblers/filters/etc.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal to use encryption on phone calls, I believe.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't be bothered to hit the [Preview] button, could you? Dumbass.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Lord Bitman]

see, I purposely didnt mention those laws because the argument has been done entirely to death, and I really don't feel like becomming one of the types of people who would bother typing such things.
If you read through slashdot, you can probably find somebody mentioning those laws at least once under every article. It's just stupid to keep pointing it out. Now if there were some nice and non-widespread anecdotes, like "In 1802 Charles Wittfucker petitioned his local government to allow him to charge people for every bullet he fired at them, and it took a 60 years and the collective effort of millions to get a federal ruling to overturn the decision"

Yes, I am saying that Civil Rights laws are not worth mentioning.

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[Lord Bitman]

I pride myself in my italics!

Re:That's a poor argument at best - here's why...

[pixelite]

yeah, i would agree with you if it weren't for something the parent post said. "...without any contract between us..."

I think that is the relevent part of his post. I agree, if there is no contract, the cable company cannot bind him to anything. now if he had a contract, ie paid for basic but stole everything else or ran a line from the neighbor, that would be different.

Arrested?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevertheless, police say customers who purchased them are now at risk of being arrested.

At the risk of being arrested? If you live in a country where you can get arrested for something minor like this, you should ask yourself what kind of citizen you have become. And more importantly, do you accept a government who wants to arrest you for 'illegally viewing' television?

Re:Arrested?

[dekashizl]

AC Says:

do you accept a government who wants to arrest you for 'illegally viewing' television?

Most important is being aware of the penalties for your actions ahead of time.

If I know exactly the penalty for something along with the likelihood of getting caught, I can decide to do it or not. These "open source" contracts between citizens and governance are an acceptable part of our society that allows large scale organization. (For example, we may sadly all need to surrender the sovereignty over our freezers and submit to periodic random freezer inspections in order to minimize risk of a catsrophic biological release).

It is only when laws and consequences are opaque, unknown, or nondeterministic that they become problematic. This is what was interesting about this particular case: the people who bought the boxes were told (incorrectly) that they were legal.

Re:Arrested?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I know exactly the penalty for something along with the likelihood of getting caught, I can decide to do it or not.

I do not agree. With this kind of reasoning it is possible to have any kind of law and the associated penalties as long as you know what they are exactly about. For example, you are not allowed to read slashdot more than once a day, otherwise you will be arrested. The consequences are clear and according to your reasoning therefore not problematic. Obviously, I would not agree with such a ridiculous law :-) Would you?

Re:Arrested?

[Anonymous Coward]

ACK. You are trading the good "privacy" for the good "right for profit" of this company. Although they should make their money, this is not acceptable for me. You can't arrest people because they're WATCHING TV. Looks like the grandparent's poster got brainwashed by someone.

These people aren't "stealing" anything!

[goldspider]

Ahoy matey, thar be PIRATES off tha port bow!!

Seriously foolks, how does one "steal" cable? Did they back a truck up to the back of the cable company building and steal a spool of cable?

Oh, you mean they're "stealing" information? But but but... INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!!!

These people are LIBERATING cable, not "stealing" it!

Re:These people aren't "stealing" anything!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahoy matey, thar be PIRATES off tha port bow!!

Well, it beats calling them hackers

Re:These people aren't "stealing" anything!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or does it? IF they made everything themselves, I would say that this is indeed hacking.

My definition of a "hacker" is someone with high technical skills. An experienced programmer who can write almost anything from scratch, an electrician who builds his own techy stuff, just for fun.

This is in fact what they have to do to "pirate" the cable tv.. decode/reverse-engineer signals/encryptions/filters and build hardware.

But.. if they just received the hardware blueprints and a DECODE.ROM file, then I'd go back to refering to them as "pirates" (Stealing with someone elses tools/property)

Re:These people aren't "stealing" anything!

[Anonymous Coward]

These people are LIBERATING cable, not "stealing" it!

I'll remember that excuse when I'm caught sneaking on to the bus without paying. After all, I only sneak on when there's room, so I'm not stealing anything or stopping anyone from riding. It's not like they're missing a whole bus at the end of the year. I wouldn't ride all those buses if I had to pay for it, and besides, they're usually messy so why should I pay?

Just pay the installer the 'Onetime Fee' ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So Called 'Rights'..

The Illegal aspect was the creation and SELLING of devices intended to decode the signals.. I as an individual can decode any random signal that comes my way...

My favorite way to steal cable is to pay the cable installer his onetime fixed fee when he came round to 'turnon' the service for my neighbor..

dear directtv

[circletimessquare]

blue blackground, gilbert gottfried holds a letter

"dear directtv

i made millions selling fake cable boxes. these boxes aren't legal they say? lies! lies!

sincerely, joe schmoe"

applause

"did i capture the guys anger?"

Re:Why are we discussing religion on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be nice to be witty and humorous? I guess you're never going to find out.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

I was the second reply to the original post

I'd just like to say that sometimes this site disgusts me. The Indian "gentleman" in particular - put your own house in order before starting on pakistan.

and to the American posters - Yes I know these ignorant thugs are only a tiny proportion of your online population but this is the sort of thing that makes people commit acts of hate. /. Mods - please get rid of this sh*t.

Regards from one appalled British reader.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT stfu limey fuckhead

[Anonymous Coward]

looks at all the fucking shit you fucks cause you fucking ass. if it wasnt for us and a real brit like churchill, your faggit asses and god save the queen fuckfaces would be speaking german.

so fuck you. fuck you. lick the boots of the uSA for what we did pig fuck

Re:'Twas the night before Goatse, when all through

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet Fart Chair is a chair with a cushion composed of a porous material, and it generally belongs to an internet enthusiast. When the Internet buff is too engrossed in web surfing, he often cannot bother to lift his butt out of the chair, and his farts become trapped in the porous cushion. Anyone who sits in an Internet Fart Chair can smell the farts of the owner as the pressure releases the entombed gasses. Worse than that, however, the Fart Chair releases gasses in a slow process as well, leaving a slight smell of farts in the air for many days after the last fart has been forced into the foam.

But why worry about Fart Chair? Once the user gets accustomed to the smell of his own farts, the aroma can become quite pleasurable and even evoke a sense of pride and accomplishment. The answer is quite simple. Internet enthusiasts -- let's be frank -- will often need as much on their side as possible if they are to ever have success with the opposite sex. One of the best ways to improve your chances of closing a deal with a fair maiden is to eliminate Fart Chair, or, better yet, make sure you never get Fart Chair in the first place. After all, when you first get her back to your hovel, the first thing she will notice is the smell of your Fart Chair. You might think this is no problem, but remember: If this is your crucial first time having her over, SHE HAS NOT HAD TIME TO ADJUST TO YOUR FARTS YET!

The best way to make sure Fart Chair never happens is to use a chair with a plastic, vinyl, or wooden seat. The only way to contaminate these is to sit in them naked and fart when you have an intestinal virus. Even then, a quick swipe with some windex and a rag should eliminate the smell and solids easily. But what if you like to have a soft cushion covered with comforting cloth material under you? How can you avoid Fart Chair? You will not get Fart Chair if you simply follow this simple instruction: LIFT YOUR BUTT OUT OF THE CHAIR BEFORE FARTING AND LEAVE IT ALOFT FOR 30 SECONDS. This can be remembered by memorizing the simple phrase, "LIFT, BREAK, AND WAIT." There are some obvious obstacles to carrying out this plan, not the least of which is that if you eat a lot of fart-producing foods, you will get tired of lifting, holding, then sitting down again. Consider eating less gasseous foods.

You're doing great! I'm proud of your progress. But what if you already have Internet Fart Chair? You have probably already tried bouncing on it, beating it, sweeping it, but nothing worked. Internet Fart Chair can be a daunting enemy. There is one way, however, to beat Fart Chair decisively. Use a vacuum cleaner with the hose attached, but with no attachment on the end. Press the hose end repeatedly into the cushion, compressing the porous material, and repeat over the entire surface of the cushion. The farts will be quickly and efficiently sucked from the cushion! No more embarassing rejection by the girl of your dreams! You will have plenty of time to get her used to the smell of your farts later, but for now, it is best to stay on the safe side. Happy surfing!

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised you cut and paste others' work so often. Your own writing skills are incredibly poor. Might I suggest that you step outside and enrol in an English Language class at community college? Hopefully they will teach you how to communicate effectively with others without having to resort to cursing retardedly.

no different than a cable modem...

[John Seminal]

don't the cable companies have a rental charge for those boxes? if you order service and pay for it, don't they charge you for each additional descrambler you have to rent. how is owning your descrambler any different from buying a cable modem. you still pay for the service, but instead of renting the equipment, you own it. why should anyone be forced to rent the box? this sounds to me like they are shifting the burden from proving you are doing something illegal like stealing cable, to saying we know you have the box, now prove you are innocent.

also, for the money you spend, why can't you buy individual chanels from the cable company. why do you have to buy them in a package? what if all i want to buy from them is just cspan and cnn? why cant i buy just those two chanels? what do i also have to get a package? because they are a monopoly and the only other option is a dish, and if you live in a condo or apartment and do not face south, you are screwed.

Re:no different than a cable modem...

[Lehk228]

I think if you have a modded cable box then you probably are using it, i'm fairly sure that a box that doesn't get you channels you didn't pay for is legal

Re:no different than a cable modem...

[zakezuke]

also, for the money you spend, why can't you buy individual chanels from the cable company. why do you have to buy them in a package? what if all i want to buy from them is just cspan and cnn? why cant i buy just those two chanels?

The best option I knew of for people like your self who wanted to save a buck is to buy the minimal service, not basic cable, but that 2-13 range I believe old TCI and AT&T cable called "lifeline" then ask about the ability to get pay per view movies. In my region, they would give you a box and you would end up with expanded basic cable for just $7.50 monthly. I'm not sure if this service still exists as I switched cable providers to one which doesn't charge extra for cable modem but no cable tv access.

Re:no different than a cable modem...

[Kazimira]

Cable companies buy their programs in bundles from the networks. Part of the contract on some of these is that if you air XYZ channel you must also air PDQ.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

Poopchute-hammer - Peter Gag'reil(4:55)

You could have a cream train (0:32) - If you'd just lay down some pipe (0:39)
You could have an anus di-iii-lating (0:44) - If you bring your big sexy backside (0:49)

All you do is call me (0:52) - I'll be anything you need (0:57)

You could have a big stiffy (1:02) - Going up and down, all around your rim (1:09)
You could have a humping fag humping! (1:14) - This amusement never ends (1:19)

I want to be... your Poopchute-hammer! (1:25) - Why don't you call my name, ahhhhhhhhh (1:30) (note: ahh is a girly fag-bitch screech)
Oh let me be your Poopchute-hammer! (1:35) - This will be my testimony (1:41)

Hey - hey! (1:45)

Show me round your fruitcage (1:52) - 'Cause I will be your semen bee (1:58) - Open up your fruitcage (2:02) - Where the semen is as sweet as can be (2:09)

I want to be.... your Poopchute-hammer! (2:15) - Why don't you call my name, ahhhhh (2:21) (note: ahh is a girly fag-bitch screech)
You'd better call the Poopchute-hammer (2:25)
Put your mind at rest (2:29) - I'm going to be.... the Poopchute-hammer! (2:35)
This can be my testimony, ahhhhhh (2:41) (note: ahh is a girly fag-bitch screech)
I'm your.... Poopchute-hammer! (2:45)
Let there be no doubt about it (2:50)

Poo! (2:51) POO! (2:53) Poopchute-hammer! (2:59)

Beowaaawoooweeoooooohooooooooo!!! (3:01) NOTE: Chorus of Flaring Flaming Butt Trumpets
Beowaaawoooweeoooooohooooooooo!!! (3:06)
Beowaaawoooweeoooooohooooooooo!!! (3:11)
Beowaaawoooweeoooooohooooooooo!!! (3:17)

I get it right (3:20) - I've kicked the habit (3:22)
Kicked the habit!!!, kicked the habit!!! (3:24) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
Shed my fore-skin, Shed my fore-skin (3:30) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
This is the new white-stuff (3:32)
This is the new white-stuff!!! (3:34) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
I go dancing in poop (3:37)
We go dancing in poop!!! (3:39) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
Oh, won't you poo for me (3:42)
Poo for me!!! (3:44) Note: Colored Girl Chorus

I will poo for you (3:47)
Poo for you!!! (3:49) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
Unnnnngh, Poo for me (3:52)
Poo for me!!! Note: Colored Girl Chorus
I will poo for you!! (3:57)
Yea, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I do mean you!!! (4:00)
Poo for me!!! (4:02) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
Only you (4:04)
You've been coming through! (4:06)
I feel you ASSRAMMER!!! (4:09) NOTE: Now begins a cacophony of screaming and grunting like pigs buttfucking.
Poo for you!!!
A-gonna build that stiffy
Build, build up that stiffy, hey Poo for me (4:18)
I've been feeding on jizzum
I've been feeding on jizzum
Poo for you
Going to feel that stiffy, yeah, stiffy in you, ha Poo for me Come on, come on, help me do
Come on, come on, help me do
Poo for you Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you Poo for me (4:30)
I've been feeding on jizzum
I've been feeding on jizzum
Poo for you It's what we're doing, doing All day and night

Poopchute-hammer
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Etiam condimentum. Aliquam gravida arcu sed urna. Mauris nec velit in ipsum imperdiet malesuada. Sed sollicitudin pede sed quam. Mauris orci est, tincidunt a, egestas non, fermentum sed, odio. Donec in magna. Phasellus quis nibh. Nam ipsum. Donec in neque. Maecenas odio. Vestibulum est quam, cursus eget, dapibus sed, condimentum vitae, lorem. In in libero eget nunc aliquet viverra. Dui

babies!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was talking with my girl about neo natal care. We decided to do it, to check up on Junior. And the Amnio found out that my Son to be had an extra Chromosome. A retard. I said to my girl,

"Hey, we must abort this fetus."

She is like; "No way, I'm not ending him. He is a Child of God and we shall raise him together.

I was like; "Yo, listen. This is the devil's child. He is a fucking retard. Now if you don't pull a Kevorkian on him, I'm going to either Chloroform your ass and yank it with a coat-hanger or fucking punch you in the midsection a lot."

So my girl didn't like me, but I'm not bringing a retard into this world. I want a good strong boy to help usher in a new age where technology cures human suffering and where Islam was killed off and exterminated as were all the dictators and communists that are an impedance to human species survival.

So later on, we had a super late abortion. I got her out with a Mickey, its like a Quaalude. Then I made her drink some beer. Then I had the Street-Doc save the aborted fetus. I quickly stole off with the aborted mush to the Chinese restaurant. They can cook anything. Man, was this meat good. Nothing like really being "you are what you eat." This is an interesting thought cycle. If you are what you eat, eat your offspring. I mean, the brains, the stem cells, the young protein. This is perfect nourishment!

So Now I Have to find a way to get girlies knocked up and then eat my fetus. Yum.

And afterbirth and the birthing amniotic juices make great sauce stock.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

admitted. you just admitted to being a perpetrator of hate crime. you said that these simple printed words incite you to commit hate crimes.

ass. how is life under opressive rule without any protection of free speech? censorship fucking fascist.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT stfu limey fuckhead

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you make al-Qaeda look positively angelic.

British reader

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

While on the subject of poor grammar and spelling I would like to inform you that one does spell enroll with a double "l." I must thank you for your failed attempt at being oh-so-perfect.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, to commit hate crimes against ignorant Americans.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT stfu limey fuckhead

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you prove that 90% of the population if left to their own devices in governance, economics, politics and allegiances the human race would not survive for very long at all. You are sitting here anonymously injecting things that are radically unrelated to what is at hand. You address a foul-mouthed uncouth person with an endorsement of a terrorist organization sought by all major governments the world over for murdering innocent people. Luckily, the way things are most anywhere in the world getting to the top largely depends on the forces of meritocracy.

I should think that Britain needs to redefine what you call your self, "British Reader," to "British simpleton."

Re:'I'm guessing you took the five dollar law clas

[Powercntrl]

Back in my old BBS'ing days, I saw more than a few misspelled variations of:

"IF YOUR A COP HANG UP NOW!!!"

"BY PRESSING ENTER YOU AGREE THAT YOU DO NOT WORK FOR OR REPORT TO ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTCY:"

"You MUST delete any file downloaded from this BBS within 24/48/72/etc. hours."

Ah, the memories.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

We may seem ignorant to primitive savages such as yourself, but committing hate crimes will only push to further improve our military and economic power in response to a threat, such as the response that was given to the Eastern block and the USSR during the latter half of the last century.

You desire to do fleeting insignificant attacks on us will only bring down a wrath for which you have no concept up. The strength and depth of American anger thrusts in response to those depriving us of life, liberty and our property is something to stand in awe of. You can chose to stand in the way. Most probably it will be the last time you ever stand at all.

You will only bring misery on thousands of families for every one you shatter here. The loss ratio will be unsustainable and you will all either die from a pandemic, Western forces in war or you will simply capitulate and start raising the standard of your living.

Good luck in this simulation known as Earth. You better not say, "may the best man win," this is a forgone conclusion.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can spell the word with one or two 'l's -- both are valid.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT stfu limey fuckhead

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be "yourself" not "your self" you stupid shitstain.

Stainless Steel Rat

[wowbagger]

In Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat" series, one of the central tenets of the lead character, "Slippery" Jim DeGriz, the most wanted interstellar criminal, was "When a con finally starts going bad, walk away - don't try to cash that last check". Hence he very rarely got caught.

It is the same thing here - the folks who are smart enough to walk away before things go south are never caught - thus we never really hear about them in the news. The only ones we hear about are the stupid ones who cash the last check and get busted.

I once heard a cop say "I've been throwing these punks up against the wall for 20 years, and I've never once found a Mensa card in their pockets."

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[Motherfucking Shit]

It is the same thing here - the folks who are smart enough to walk away before things go south are never caught - thus we never really hear about them in the news. The only ones we hear about are the stupid ones who cash the last check and get busted.

Ponderous, man, ponderous.

This reminds me of something I saw on 20/20 or 48 Hours a couple of weeks ago. A pair of guys came up with an ingenious scam: their local horse racing track posted unclaimed winning ticket numbers on its website. Apparently, winning tickets could be fed into a machine at the track which would verify things via some OCR magic, then spit out cash money. These two guys got the bright idea to print up fake unclaimed "winning tickets" with the right font, etc. to fool the cash machines.

Everything was going just fine. They were pulling the scam and cashing out to the tune of thousands of dollars a month - as one of them said in the interview, it was "unclaimed money," it's not like they were sticking up banks. At this pace, they never would have been caught; a few grand a month was way under the radar of the gaming commission. Then, one of the fools got greedy and decided to print up a forged ticket for a practically impossible series of bets, which paid off in the millions. People got suspicious damn quick. Now they're both in jail.

It's definitely true, greed will ruin just about any successful scam. If these two guys had just kept running their few-$K/month scam, I bet they'd still be out there living the good life.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[swb]

God, I'm always amazed at the people who blow some solid scam, good for a reliable source of money. A couple of $K per month would be perfect and, over time, would be a huge amount of money that could substantially increase one's standard of living. In 5 years at $2k per month, you'd have over a hundred thousand dollars, tax free!

If you used it to pay off your mortgage, the savings would be even larger -- potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. At that point the weatlh effect would be trivial.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[Paradise Pete]

Then, one of the fools got greedy and decided to print up a forged ticket for a practically impossible series of bets, which paid off in the millions.

Makes no sense. They were only duplicating tickets for winning bets which have already been made. So how could they then forge a ticket worth millions? I think maybe you're not quite remembering it correctly.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[drinkypoo]

I once heard a cop say "I've been throwing these punks up against the wall for 20 years, and I've never once found a Mensa card in their pockets."

It strikes me that if he's throwing them up against the wall and finding any ID at all, at least accurate stuff, they're not that smart to begin with.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[Anonymous Coward]

He really didn't tell the story well. They changed the bets in the computer half way through the 6 race series. (They boxed the last 3 races). It worked once, but the second time they "won" it was so unlikely that people thought it was strange and looked into the details, like the fact that someone had won with the same type of bet a month earlier.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[Anonymous Coward]

One of them was a programmer at the company that ran the off-track betting network. So, while he wasn't "hacking", he did have inside knowledge about both how the tickets worked and were verified, and presumably which ticket #s would pay off.

The only reason they got caught is that an extreme longshot one a Triple Crown race. They were basically the ONLY winners, which attracted suspicion.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it would be a good idea to pay off a mortgage with that money. There would probably be a paper trail and the IRS would be pay attention ("where did this guy get $100,000 to pay off his mortgage?"). Scammers must learn to keep a low profile. Don't buy expensive houses or cars.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[Anonymous Coward]

The IRS doesn't care where you got your money. Infact you could put "illegal drug deals" on your tax returns and they couldn't hold it against you in a court of law, as per the 5th amendment.

So take this advice, If a large amount of money ever "falls off a truck" or similar for you, buck up and send the IRS their 15% lump sum.

Remember, they busted Capone for tax evasion.

T

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[dcgaber]

I hope you are not a lawyer, because you certainly would get in trouble for addmitting that you are a drug dealer on your tax forms. This would be an admission against interest and fully allowed to be evidence in a court. If you were tried, you could not be compelled to take the stand and testify against yourself, but this certainly would be evidence against you.

Why do you think confessions are used in trials?

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[CmdrTHAC0]

A similar thing (source: Reader's Digest) was happening with a scam at the Catskill off-track betting site. One of their employees, Christopher Hart, would change the bet registered to the actual ticket to reflect the winner after the race. He even set up an automatic system to do it.

Then they made ~$3M when Volponi beat 42:1 odds, and suspicions triggered an investigation. Nobody believed one person would bet 6 tickets on those odds.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[Feztaa]

It strikes me that if he's throwing them up against the wall and finding any ID at all, at least accurate stuff, they're not that smart to begin with.

I think that's kinda the point. They were stupid enough to get caught; they're not Mensa members.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[drinkypoo]

They might be Mensa members, they're smart enough not to carry ID giving their proper name. That, and/or he's not catching the Mensa members. But, there's no rule saying a Mensa member can't be a deadbeat.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[Feztaa]

They might be Mensa members, they're smart enough not to carry ID giving their proper name. That, and/or he's not catching the Mensa members. But, there's no rule saying a Mensa member can't be a deadbeat.

Am I not making myself clear enough?

The criminal element of Mensa is smart enough to not get caught! All the ones getting caught are stupid, hence no Mensa membership for them.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[dvdeug]

Then, one of the fools got greedy and decided to print up a forged ticket for a practically impossible series of bets, which paid off in the millions.

Actually, they told the computer to pick the winning horse, before they knew which horse would win. When the 80 to 1 long-shot won, then they knew they were in deep trouble.

Re:Stainless Steel Rat

[HidingMyName]

Good point, just to be explicit one of the contributing factors to trigger the investigation was that the long odds made the payoff too large (I think it was several hundred thousand US dollars).

Re:'Twas the night before Goatse, when all through

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail it. I have encounted that text long before you started posting crap here.

It's totally not your style anyway, being fairly coherent and all.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are in the Kingdom of God, or my dominion, I must tell you that I do not accept enrol [SIC] as a valid spelling for the real word, enroll. The etymology of the word clearly shows that the variant is indeed a bastardization of the proper word, enroll. Thank you for your prompt observance of this decree, for so it is written.

Re:'I'm guessing you took the five dollar law clas

[Afty0r]

'These discs are only provided as backups and you must own the original game.' - which raises the question, why isn't the person backing up the game themselves?

Because the person lives in a contry run by a government which has enacted laws that, while giving them the *right* to make a backup, has made it illegal to sell, give or talk about the equipment required to make the backups. Thus, while the person has the right to carry out the activity, they are prevented by law from doing so.

Re:MENTAL ILLNESS ALERT stfu limey fuckhead

[Anonymous Coward]

Your profane eructations here only serve as a testament to your poor command of your emotions and your language. I take pleasure in watching you thrash about.

Actually....

[TygerFish]

Actually, I've seen people pay more for it... especially in packages combinating basic television, premium/movie channels, data services and what have you.

Considering that in New York city at least, Time Warner Cable appears to have withdrawn pay-per-view movie access from all but its digital customers without bothering to mention that it has done so, there is a strong pressure for its customers to pay more.

It is also easy to see why some people see nothing wrong with trying to avoid paying eight-hundred-forty dollars per year for access to the USA network and, eventually, Gigli shown and repeated again and again and again...

Re:Actually....

[TygerFish]

Please, someone cut off my hand for typing 'combinating.' That last would have been so nice a note without it...

Re:Actually....

[Alrescha]

"Please, someone cut off my hand for typing 'combinating.' That last would have been so nice a note without it..."

Got bad news for you. You used *both* hands to type that...

A.

Re:Actually....

[Mysticalfruit]

They could be a hunt and peek typer...

Re:Actually....

[Cloudface]

Time Warner's current slogan is, in part, "the place to be"

and with roughly 1,188,000 cable boxes in NYC, it certainly is (for them, anyway)...The city, sans interlopers and faux cable boxes must be a gold mine for them. When you call their customer service they also have a prerecorded announcer inform you that they're committed to being the best cable service. If they're a monopoly, however, (and for all practical purposes they are, in many neighborhoods) how can they be the best? Or the worst? Or anything but the medium?

Re:Actually....

[ncc74656]

"Please, someone cut off my hand for typing 'combinating.' That last would have been so nice a note without it..."

Got bad news for you. You used *both* hands to type that...

Unless there was some pr0n up in another window...

Re:Actually....

[Anonymous Coward]

But people should want free access to Gigli being repeated over and over?

Re:Actually....

[Afrosheen]

To summarize your whole point:

only !== best

Re:Actually....

[Anonymous Coward]

To summarize your summary:

only != best

To refute grandparent: "Only" implies "best" and "worst"!

Re:Actually....

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, someone cut off my hand for typing 'combinating.'

Oh, hardly. It earned you a prestigious place in my "Vocabules" bookmark list, alongside "illrational," "seduvcity," and "superfalous." Welcome to the club!

Re:Actually....

[Cloudface]

Actually, the McLuhan is the message...

Re:'Twas the night before Goatse, when all through

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about the Hyrda when thinking of whomever you are mistaking this for. You won't be so lucky as Jason - you may just get fleeced.

appolgies to Office Space

[Powercntrl]

Alright, so when the cable company gives you basic cable, you get all extra encrypted channels that you can't view. So I simplified the whole thing and I just, I decode all of them, with a chip that I bought.

So you're stealing?

Uh no, no, you don't understand, it's uh, it's very complicated, it's uh, it's, it's aggregate so I'm talking about fractions of a channel here and uh, over time, they add up to a lot.

Oh okay, so you're gonna get a lot of channels right?

Yea.

They're not yours?

Ah, well they becomes ours.

How is that not stealing?

Re:appolgies to Office Space

[DoorFrame]

They become your because they were sent into your house without your permission and without your consent. If someone mails you a shiny new computer in the mail and then demands you pay two thousand dollars to keep the computer, you are under no legal obligation to do so. They sent it to you without contract and it's now yours.

If someone sends a signal down a wire into your house, I contend that it's yours to do with as you see fit... this includes unscrambling it and watching it. The same holds true for sattelite broadcasts and radio signals. Can you imagine being sued for listening to radio broadcasts? Explain what's different.

Where is the INJURED party?

[Anonymous Coward]

There must be a injury, so where is the injured party?
We have got to stop arresting people because DATA companies are too lame to figure out a way to protect their data!
If you can't protect it, then don't put it out there!
Stop demanding WE ALL PAY to protect BIG COMPANIES DATA through OUR government!
We don't pay them to protect company data!
No one is actually hurt by this. There is no real injury!
Lawyers are twisting LAW to suit their corporate needs.
Why don't people know LAW and know that this is crap and screwing up everything?

Move over, goatse!

[Black Parrot]

Forget goatse, the latest rage is butcandle.com.

Fiar use...

[FreeUser]

I'm curious about this situation where I might be able to see where there *is* a legal, non-infringing use. Suppose I already am a subscriber, but I purchase my own equipment, ie, one of these black boxes, to use instead of my cable provider's in order to save the extra charges they tack on to the bill for each box? Fair use? Or illegal?

Fair use. But don't tell that to our whored out congress; they'll just use it to sell themselves cheap to yet another corporate media John and turn another Trick.

Re:Fiar use...

[malfunct]

It may be fair use, but last time I signed up for comcast cable renting the cable box was an obligation under the contract. I think they expressly wrote a contract that prevented use of third party boxes.

Re:'I'm guessing you took the five dollar law clas

[sanschag]

Anyone got any examples of loopier disclaimers?

Supposedly on the INS form for foreigners visiting the US (I'm a US citizen, so this is from my colleagues):
Are you entering the the country for the purpose of committing acts of terrorism?
Answering yes will not necessarily prevent your entry into the US.

tsarkon hasn't a clue about etymology

[Anonymous Coward]

"Enrol" is the preferred usage in British English -- that is, the most original and authoritative version of English. "Enroll" is just an American misspelling.

British reader cant accept failure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. You cant even "evolve" from Middle English properly.

Middle English enrollen, from Old French enroller : en-, in; see en*1 + rolle, roll (from Latin rotula, little wheel; see roll).

Lots of double "l" I see in there. enrollen, enroller, rolle, roll.

commercials

[Anonymous Coward]

pay for the programming. You are just paying a 2nd time.

Can't deny you satellite at condos/apts

[adzoox]

According to federal law...

http://www.satellite-tv-free.com/rightstosatellite .htm

You cannot be denied satellite TV. Condo and Apertment regimes may TRY to tell you you can't put up a satellite but they can't do so. I fought this battle with my condo regime and won.

And technically you can contruct something "unobtrusive" to face the proper direction. This means in MY case a 12 foot pole.

Re:Can't deny you satellite at condos/apts

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC has mandated that NO LANDLORD, CONDO, CITY, STATE or any other organization or government agency can disallow anyone with DEEDED SPACE or a BALCONY (in the case of an apartment) that faces a satellite, the right to put up a satellite dish under 1 meter (1.5 meters in Alaska). They CANNOT require a permit, advance notification, the payment of any fee or force the owner or tenant to move the dish (or antenna) if they don't like the way it makes the property look. As long as the space is DEEDED to an owner or on a balcony in the event of a renter - THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS to this.

Additionally, the Commission's rulings have concluded that NO GOVERNMENT or BOARD or BUILDING can require any special wind loading requirements for satellite dishes. Neither can they require that they are installed by "licensed electrical contractors" or only by installers who are members of a union.

(If visiting the link above make sure you backspace at .htm)

Re:Can't deny you satellite at condos/apts

[YrWrstNtmr]

I think what he was talking about is the actual directional requirements. If your apt/condo is on the 8th floor, on the north side of a 20 story building, yes, you may in fact be SOL.
Sure, you can hang the dish, but no matter how mush you want it to, it will not work.

Re:Can't deny you satellite at condos/apts

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you are allowed to have a "top of the building" mounted dish if this is the problem. Of course this would be a great expense.

When I worked for a major set top mfr

[cblguy]

We had a guy who worked across the hall from me. He was the 'cable cop'. He even had a little silver badge pasted on to his employee access badge. His job was to purchase pirate devices, and then get with engineering on how the company could defeat them. :)

It was pretty interesting, getting to play with the chipped boxes, seeing what happened. Of course, that was a few years ago when analog still ruled the roost and digital was working but not prevalent.

Engineering had to come up with different scrambling algorithms to try and keep one step ahead. Those head end scramblers were pretty cool pieces of equipment. We'd throw the latest scrambler firmware at the pirate boxes and see what happened. And then there were the attempts at total picture obliteration (no "nude parts" in a picture). Those were interesting to test. =8)

I bailed out of that industry, but I must admit, the trade shows were pretty darn good. ;)

pop up ads on cabletv

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see why ppl steal cable. The cable co gets paid by commercials already, so at the least my subscription should be much cheaper.
and last night i got my first pop up add on tv
it continued to pop up one ever 10 min and you have to scroll over to close it.
so im paying $95 a month for a couple channels worth watching and internet that goes out constantly, with pop ups and commercials.

GREED

[p51d007]

$5,000,000.00 isn't enough. That is, if you have now gotten comfortable with the "rich" lifestyle. Hummer, 3 houses, 2 boats, a plane and a partridge in a pear tree...

Shut it, ya tube

[Anonymous Coward]

Or my tight fists will be put to a good and painful use.

Here's my problem...

[j-turkey]

My problem with this is that part of the AT&T breakup ruling was that AT&T could not require you to rent or purchase their equipment (anyone here old enough to remember the US pre AT&T breakup remembers that it was "illegal" to buy your own phone and hook it up...or "illegal" to hook up additional phones on your line).

The federal government stepped in and said that you can't be trapped into renting or buying equipment to use a communications service.

Now, that being said, why do I have to buy or rent equipment from a cable provider? I can provide my own cable modem. If I plug my computer directly into the wall for cable (in order to use a product like Showshifter, and I pay for premium service -- why can't I descramble it myself? It's decidely not stealing in any was (unless you count timeshifting as stealing, but this is a completely unrelated issue). That being said, why can't I have a descrambler box?

This is no different than Hughes witch-hunt where they went after anyone who bought a smart card reader...they just assumed that anyone who bought one was going to steal their service. Sure, they may catch a few theives, but at what expense?

I'm surprised that many of the same slashdot readers who were against the DMCA (and its use in enforcing copyrights) seem to support the use of the DMCA here. I can also draw some parallels to the DVD-CCA/DeCSS case with regards to the DMCA, but hopefully, those anti-DMCA readers will get the picture by now.

--Turkey

Re:Here's my problem...

[geekoid]

As of a few years ago, thet held true for cable boxes.
I tried to find the law again, but I was getting to many hits for other crap.

If you search the following link for " (CS Docket No. 96-83)" it will take you to a link tht looks like its the correct documant, but I get a 404. I suspect a lot of people may have been going there.

http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

I s=can't remen=ber if it was added to the telecom bill, or the same bill that makes it illegal to prohibit satalite dishes from being installed in apartments.

When I checked this out before the deal was that it is perfectly legal to use a descrambler purchased from someone else, as long as you still paid for the service. Basically allowing you not to have to purchase or rent from the cable provider.

And yes, I do remember when you could only buy phones from Ma Bell.

They don't need to pay anyone...

[MadAnthony02]

cable companies don't even need to pay people to get them to rat on each other. You can do it for free on this website, and I'm sure there are others. I know Comcast is involved in the above one, there was an article in the Baltimore Sun a while ago about the program - they have been running ads on TV and have had quite a bit of luck getting people to turn on their neighbors.

For an amusing, RIAA-esque read, check out the cabletheft.com "get the facts" section, which blames cable theft not only for higher rates, but also for "ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF OTHERS".

What you see and don't see

[A nonymous Coward]

You will never see reports about the people who had that plan and did it right and got away with it.

You can't distinguish between people who had no plan and those who had your plan but set their sights too high. Maybe these people simply planned on $15M and got caught before reaching their goal.

Dear DirecTV-Chimera.

[Anonymous Coward]

If memory serves? There's a slight, but important difference between a legitimate smartcard programmer, and the DSS version. BYW if one needs one, shouldn't work be handling that?

Information wants to be free!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable companies and record cartels are relics of an age that's already rocketed past.

Sustainability is the key to any environment.

These won't be problems for long.

I celebrate the DMCA - it's accelerating the inevitable. The orange was already rotten and drying up, and the DMCA was a giant hand squeezing it to pulp.

The outdated notions of privacy still held by many slashdot members, and the outdated notions of IP and government still held by many government officials, will both be forced to evolve in the coming decades.

No privacy and no government, the worst case nightmare scenario for all involved. And it's coming.

Just pay the installer the 'Onetime Fee' ...MINE!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I as an individual can decode any random signal that comes my way..."

Technically no you can't. What you mean is that you can, and not get caught and punished.(2)

But then that's what morality and ethics is about. Knowing what you can, and can't do, and then not doing what you shouldn't, and doing what you should(1).

"My favorite way to steal cable is to pay the cable installer his onetime fixed fee when he came round to 'turnon' the service for my neighbor.."

Thanks for proving that the world is on a moral decline. Shame that the "innocents" have to suffer "collateral" damage.

(1) That's part of the reason the courts are the mess they are. What use to be implicit (Thou shall not...), is now explicit "Party of the first part...". We now have to be explicitly told what's right and wrong, in excruiating detail, so that a "loophole" isn't used. No wonder laws and the legal system are hard to understand.

(2) People have to be "caught" before they know what's right and wrong. Apparently they didn't know beforehand.

wait 'till 2005 ....

[taniwha]

the FTC has required that cable companies accept 3rd party boxes - expect Best Buy to be very busy that year

Re:Were _not_ illegal to _OWN_ ...

[rpresser]

Legal to own; illegal to use to steal cable service. Much like a handgun is legal to own, but illegal to use to kill people.

Here you go:

[geekoid]

" In Section 629 of the Communications Act, as added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the FCC to create rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices" -- meaning set top boxes, remote control units and other equipment -- from commercial sources other than their multichannel programming service provider."

http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1 99 9/nrcb9009.html

"Service providers are prohibited from taking actions that would prevent navigation devices
that do not perform conditional access functions from being made available from retailers,
manufacturers, or other unaffiliated vendors."

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1 99 8/nrcb8013.txt

Here is what is going on, in a nut shell:

In 1996* the FCC ruled that consumer can by set top boxes and use them to access cable TV sa long as trhe consumer is paying for the service. Basicaly giving the consumer an option to renting the devices.

The the Cable/Satalite companies started adding 'security' devices intergrated into the set top box, and has said consuymer can't create something that 'circumnavigates' those device.

So now the commision as saifd that the security devices need to be seperated from the reciever.

Cable companies have tried to fight this, but the FCC has rulled against them.

Re:Here you go:

[Whatchamacallit]

Yeah but the guy with a black box may think he's safe because he pays for basic cable, but the black box decodes all the channels including the pay per view stuff so he's really not paying for it all.

A person using this while paying for basic cable service is theft. It's no different then walking into a store, shoplifting a bunch of stuff and paying for a pair of socks!

To steal cable without paying at all requires running a cable a splicing it to the pole. This happens but it's less likely due to the technical issues. It's also easier to get caught.

Re:Here you go:

[csplinter]

Many cable descramblers are programmable, and they allow you to block the channels your not paying for, effectivly the same thing the cable company is doing when they bring their box into your home.

Re:Were _not_ illegal to _OWN_ ...

[LostCluster]

Yep, and therefore trying to go after the end customers based on the purchase alone is not enough... they've also got to prove they used to device to steal cable.

What about illegitimate use for non-pay channels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Major confession: I steal cable. Why? Because I get really crappy reception in my building and its the only way I can get PBS (which is all I ever watch). Actually, more specifically: all I ever watch is "NewsHour".

I also donate $$ every year to PBS.

So my message to the cable companies: Pthtpt!

Re:'I'm guessing you took the five dollar law clas

[geekoid]

becasue the prison they will put you in will be in the United States.

Why don't companies move to cheaper US locations

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe companies are offshoring like mad because they have to pay developers 100k+ so they can afford to live in inflated cost of living areas like most of California, Seattle, NY, etc. The cost of living in places like Oklahoma City, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Carolina, Southern Oregon, etc are such that someone making 30k can have a pretty good life.

This is not as cheap as India but the developers and support are in the same time zone, speak good English and the Great American Consumer Economy keeps on rollin'

When it costs half a mil for a shitty 3 bedroom house you know something has to give.

Re:L.EGAL C.A.B.L.E TV DE-S.C.R.A.M.B.L.E.R

[Anonymous Coward]

I found that design posted on someone's geocities site once. It's just a simple LC filter. It would actually work on some of the simplest analog scrambling from the 1980s. So technically, they're not lying.

Free Cable In San Jose!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if it's the area, or a symptom of the infrastructure itself, but of the five places I've lived in the last 10 years, each had analog A/B cable turned on. Yes, 10 years of free cable! Sure, there was no HBO, Showtime, etc, but I did/do get everything on the "Basic Plus" plan that Comcast usually charges $40 a month for.

Am I just lucky, or is the cable company just to lazy to turn the cable off when someone moves?

Quite the quandary!

[Deagol]

At first glance, this argument is pretty compelling, in spite of laws to the contrary --we own our homes and surface land, not the earth and/or water/minerals below it (unless you buy that right), nor do we own the skies above it.

It just makes sense -- you, by your own actions, broadcast a small scrap of the EM spectrum into my back yard. I should be able to do what I damned well please with it. If I lived within earshot of a major baseball venue, I certainly can't be blamed for listening in on the game, can I?

However, can I grant my fellow man free reign to intercept signals on private property and yet deny the government or private industy from, say, intercepting cordless phone, PC monitor radiation, or even infra-red being cast from my own body (see SCOTUS case involving cops using IR tech to snoop homes) on public property?

I want it both ways, but the logical side of me can't reconcile the conflict. Maybe I'm missing a key fact which someone else can clue me in on?

Re:Quite the quandary!

[Lord Bitman]

Yeah- that you shouldnt be having private conversations on a cell phone. Though the real argument that I'm trying to make is that this isnt like a radio signal [yeah I know it is a radio signal, but shut up ;)], they are sending the signal down a wire directly into your home. Now, I'll argue well into the night that broadcasting your telephone call "in the clear" pretty much kills any expectation of privacy you might desire, but it's still not quite as obscene as using someone's home intercom system's alternate frequency and telling them not to tune in to it.

I have heard that there is a driver for one of the ATI cards with RF-in which includes error correction. This driver "corrected" the scrambling right out of the scrambled channels.
Oops.

Illegal to own?

[Penguin2212]

I thought it was perfectly legal to own a black box, just so long as you don't hook it up. Or, if you do you have to tell your cable company that you are using one so you can be appropriately billed for the service you are using.

Re:Just pay the installer the 'Onetime Fee' ...MIN

[Imperial Tacohead]

If you're going to refer to morality and ethics, then you ought to make a moral or ethical argument that stealing cable is the wrong thing to do. You don't do that, claiming that it's somehow implicit or self-evident. But I'm not willing to accept that premise of your argument. Absent that, what sort of case can you make?

It's PAYING for the signal u don't like

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I'm sure there are simple methods to prevent these signals, but in the end the reasoning behind not actively blocking is simple. We live in a civilization. We are not ruled or governed by the laws of physics, but rather the laws of the land. Generally speaking, the majority of the populace subscribes to the barter system in which goods (money) is exchanged for services, with laws in place to criminalize the act of unlawfully accessing those services.

Then second part of this is economy of scale. If you have to actively block non-subscribers then you have to send someone out to line for everytime someone moves in or out to install or remove the filters to actively block the signal. I'm sure you are thinking "that's ok, that's the cable companies problem", which is and isn't true. Yes, that would be their problem and their expense if that was the way things worked, the problem is that they don't operate in a vacuum, they have to pay people to make these line changes, so the cost of cable goes up for the majority of the masses.

So, basically, while your assertation is true physically, it's not really the answer. I doubt it would hold up legally.

If you aren't subscribing then why would you have a device to decode the signal? Some people think up elaborate (and sometimes true) reasons for doing what they know is not right, but the justification let's them think they have the moral high ground. If you don't want the signal in your house request they remove it, unless you have no problem with the signal, it's the paying for the signal that you don't like :)

Re:It's PAYING for the signal u don't like

[Lord Bitman]

It's more an issue of rights. I don't really mean to go so far out of the way, but the same arguments which apply to anal sex laws can be applied here. The idea that there is any law whatsoever against a passive act is sickening- You shouldnt be allowed to shoot people, but damned if I'll let them take away my right to get shot!

Re:It's PAYING for the signal u don't like

[Lord Bitman]

At this point, the whole thing could be automated. You know, 'cause I hear they're sending data on those lines now.

Re:Were _not_ illegal to _OWN_ ...

[Afrosheen]

It's legal to kill people using a gun in some circumstances, be clear. If someone breaks into your house at night and you think they're going to kill you or your family, you can blow a hole through them. (The Make My Day law, legal in many states). The other instance is if you feel your life is being threatened, the other person has a gun, and if you shoot first you win. Of course in this case there are a host of mitigating circumstances and it'll definitely go before the court, but your chances of winning are generally high. In the previous scenario, you're almost guaranteed to not have a problem with the law.

So yeah, if you own a gun, it's legal to kill people with it under some circumstances.

Same as the spam I've been getting?

[ChaosDiscord]

For a while a healthy chunk of my incoming spam was "Cable TV Descrambler, perfectly legal" junk. I always assumed it was legal, just highly deceptive. My understanding is that it is legal to own a digital cable TV decoder box (arguably a "descrambler"), but that said box was useless unless that cable company did something to hook you up. In essence they were offering to sell you the exact same box your cable company is willing to sell you, but at a huge price increase because they hinted that you get get cable for free (but notably the spam never actually said as much). You get a worthless box that you're not going to return because claiming, "Returning because I couldn't steal cable service" is stupid. So are these the same guys? The article doesn't provide alot of detail. Heck, one of the key charges appears to be money laundering according the article. The quoted sheriff says that common sense says it's illegal, but never actually says that it is illegal (and common sense is sometimes wrong about such things). It's a real shame that the article doesn't have more details on the specific charges.

Re:'I'm guessing you took the five dollar law clas

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, gord is an asswipe. an egotistical asswipe. wait, i'm not sorry. what a loser.

Technically they were right...

[mengel]

Don't get me wrong, but I think they were right... It is perfectly legal to own such a box

...as long as you never actually use it.

Re:Just pay the installer the 'Onetime Fee' ...MIN

[geoffspear]

Categorical imperative. If no one paid for cable, the cable company would turn off everyone's service and then there's be no signal to steal.

Re:Just pay the installer the 'Onetime Fee' ...MIN

[Imperial Tacohead]

By that reasoning, homosexual acts are necessarily immoral. You may or may not agree with this; I do not. As the situations are parallel -- neither can be acted upon universally, yet neither cause demonstratable harm to any third party -- I can't agree with applying the categorical imperative to this question. What else you got?

Re:Were _not_ illegal to _OWN_ ...

[Anonymous Coward]

s/kill/murder/

They are not the same thing. It is not illegal to kill a person. It is illegal to murder. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing, so yes, the previous statement is a tautology, but the law books are very clear about clearly defining murder.

Thats where we get things like "justifiable homicide". homicide and killing mean basically the same thing. There is no such thing as "justifiable murder" because murder is wrong (in the legal or moral sense depending on the context) by definition.

Those halcyon days of....

[Anonymous Coward]

Popup ads featuring Natalie Portman with the text "CABLE DESCRAMBELER ISNET ILLELGAL!" Those beautiful flashing boxes with a Windoze-esque titlebar, vibrating like some eye-annihilating advertising dildo. Those spam messages from "Dave" saying "Hey..."

Ahh, those were the days.

Re:Were _not_ illegal to _OWN_ ...

[csplinter]

Thank you data. That was very.. informative. It's not like rpresser was just trying to make a point or anything.

Re:Islamofascist Islamic fascist red alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

you started it. can you fuckers afford to finish the game there big boy?

you will RUE the day you started fucking with us. i promise.