I have been trying unsuccessfully to find the gentleman that unlocked my
card. I need somewhere else to get them done. IF anyone out there does them
and also can install the switch I need a price on both. PLEASE HELP
If you really MUST publicly advertise your desire to pirate satellite
signals, at least do it in the right group.
Try alt.satellite.expressvu
"Heidi Gannon" <hgannon@no-spam> wrote in message
news:fuLOa.10342$Tx.529625@no-spam
> I have been trying unsuccessfully to find the gentleman that unlocked my
> card. I need somewhere else to get them done. IF anyone out there does
them
> and also can install the switch I need a price on both. PLEASE HELP
>
>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:20:34 GMT
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:50:45 -0400, "Commentator"
<commentator@no-spam> wrote:
>If you really MUST publicly advertise your desire to pirate satellite
>signals, at least do it in the right group.
>
>Try alt.satellite.expressvu
>
>
Such machinations just to watch a TV.
Is "Sanford and Son" on or something?
OT
lol- I hear a commercial here....
"Heidi Gannon" <hgannon@no-spam> wrote in message
news:fuLOa.10342$Tx.529625@no-spam
> I have been trying unsuccessfully to find the gentleman that unlocked my
> card. I need somewhere else to get them done. IF anyone out there does
them
> and also can install the switch I need a price on both. PLEASE HELP
>
>
<newsgroups snipped.>
I would say ask at the regional detention center to see if he is living
there now ;)
Olaf Timandahaff wrote:
> Such machinations just to watch a TV.
> Is "Sanford and Son" on or something?
"Sanford and Son" & "Home Improvement"... junk & powertools!
Pull up the recliner and a cool beer and enjoy! ;-)
--
"Its the bugs that keep it running."
-Joe Canuck
Call 230-6211. They will help you out.
--
"Its the bugs that keep it running."
-Joe Canuck
Rammer wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:50:45 -0400, "Commentator"
> <commentator@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>If you really MUST publicly advertise your desire to pirate satellite
>>signals, at least do it in the right group.
>>
>>Try alt.satellite.expressvu
>>
>
> Personally, I'm waiting for them to start beaming chocolate bars into
> my home, and then telling me I can't eat them.
This is something like the mini-bar in some hotels/motels.
I remember staying for almost a month at the Sutton Place in downtown
Vancouver where there was a mini-bar in the room. The nice thing about
this mini-bar is the items were all removable without having to pay a
cent... no this isn't going where you think. :-)
I removed the items and placed them in a drawer and loaded the fridge up
with my own items purchased at the grocery store much cheaper. I
remember the look of sheer horror when the mini-bar stocking guy was
making his rounds one day when I happened to be in the room. He said:
"Sir, do you have items in the mini-bar?" I said yes and the original
contents were in the drawer... showing him the drawer. He checked the
items in the drawer, thanked me, then walked out of the room. That was
the last time I saw the mini-bar restocking guy in my room! When I left
I replaced all the original items in the mini-bar and there was no
mini-bar charges on my bill... I was expecting a fridge rental charge
but none of that either. :-)
At the Holiday Inn in Pointe Claire (Montreal) they have mini-bars. One
can get a can of pop for 5 different prices in the hotel. Mini-bar,
vending machine, tuck shop downstairs, room service and restaurant
prices. Naturally the mini-bar price is the most expensive.
--
"Its the bugs that keep it running."
-Joe Canuck
You're a cop busting everyone who replies and says they'll do it,
riiiiiiiiight? lol
"Heidi Gannon" <hgannon@no-spam> wrote in message
news:fuLOa.10342$Tx.529625@no-spam
> I have been trying unsuccessfully to find the gentleman that unlocked my
> card. I need somewhere else to get them done. IF anyone out there does
them
> and also can install the switch I need a price on both. PLEASE HELP
>
>
Well the original poster was asking for illegal services in a public forum.
How stupid is that?
"Brian & Suz" <bcantl9588@no-spam> wrote in message
news:OT%Oa.99391$x4o.32986@no-spam
> You're a cop busting everyone who replies and says they'll do it,
> riiiiiiiiight? lol
>
> "Heidi Gannon" <hgannon@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:fuLOa.10342$Tx.529625@no-spam
> > I have been trying unsuccessfully to find the gentleman that unlocked my
> > card. I need somewhere else to get them done. IF anyone out there does
> them
> > and also can install the switch I need a price on both. PLEASE HELP
> >
> >
>
>
xxx wrote:
> > I removed the items and placed them in a drawer and loaded the fridge up
> > with my own items purchased at the grocery store much cheaper. I
> > remember the look of sheer horror when the mini-bar stocking guy was
> > making his rounds one day when I happened to be in the room. He said:
> > "Sir, do you have items in the mini-bar?" I said yes and the original
> > contents were in the drawer... showing him the drawer. He checked the
> > items in the drawer, thanked me, then walked out of the room. That was
> > the last time I saw the mini-bar restocking guy in my room! When I left
> > I replaced all the original items in the mini-bar and there was no
> > mini-bar charges on my bill... I was expecting a fridge rental charge
> > but none of that either. :-)
>
> You remind me alot of my brother-in-law, what a cheap square he is.
> I bet you're full of laughs at a mini bar party.
>
Cheap? Why is that cheap? Who the hell is stupid enough to purchase anything
from a
mini bar fridge? Oh wait, you?
Ramboyd
xxx wrote:
> You remind me alot of my brother-in-law, what a cheap square he is.
> I bet you're full of laughs at a mini bar party.
There is a cost for the convenience... that's one convenience I won't
pay for.
> Please share some more of your life experiences, I'm intrigued :)
I didn't pay the ~$5000 hotel bill or the $600 car parking charge
either. :-)
--
"Its the bugs that keep it running."
-Joe Canuck
"Kevin" <kombat@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0CC5B5.443BF3E1@no-spam
> Commentator wrote:
> >
> > If you really MUST publicly advertise your desire to pirate
> > satellite signals, at least do it in the right group.
>
> If someone insists on beaming uninvited signals onto my property,
> is it wrong of me to listen to said signals?
The signal happens to be encrypted, and it happens to be illegal to decrypt
it without a paid subscription.
Rationalize all you want, but it is illegal.
(And BTW, you have just reproduced the LAMEST of all the arguments that
people advance to justify piracy.)
>
> If I live next to a park where the Rolling Stones are putting on
> a concert, is it immoral of me to open my window and listen?
>
> If someone opens a drive-in theatre across the street from my
> house, is it wrong of me to sit on my porch and watch the movie?
>
> Kevin.
Commentator wrote:
>
> (And BTW, you have just reproduced the LAMEST of all the
> arguments that people advance to justify piracy.)
I noticed you very conspicuously ignored my other 2 questions.
Kevin.
"Kevin" <kombat@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F0D4B93.20540A2F@no-spam
> Commentator wrote:
> >
> > (And BTW, you have just reproduced the LAMEST of all the
> > arguments that people advance to justify piracy.)
>
> I noticed you very conspicuously ignored my other 2 questions.
>
> Kevin.
Conspicuously?
You posed those questions in an attempt to justify the first, and so I
considered them irrelevant to the discussion.
Here's why, since you insist on playing games. (And BTW, you have not
addressed MY comments)
Satellite signals are encrypted. They are not visible, and their presence
does not affect you in any way. To access them without paying, you make a
conscious decision to (illegally) decrypt and steal them.
A Rolling Stones concert is not encrypted, therefore it requires no decision
to do anything. Normal senses pick up the "signals". The conscious
decision has to be to IGNORE rather than to STEAL. There are no laws
against listening to what, in your case, would amount to environmental
sounds.
The same is true for the drive-in, except the sense is vision instead of
hearing.
To be clear, I don't care if you do or don't pirate satellite signals - no
skin off of me. Just don't be such a lamer as to make completely invalid
comparisons or try to offer inane justifications. If you choose to break
the law, at least accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
My favorite, though, is the oft-used euphemism "testing", as if that fools
anyone.
Your arguements only apply to Cnadian based services as it is against the
law for US services to sell subscriptions to Canadians, and the CRTC has
ruled that it is illegal for Canadians to pursue grey-market subscriptions
(ie using a US billing address).
In this case you are not depriving anyone from revenue, and Canadian
authorities are out of their jurisdiction to rule on decrypting broadcasts
originating from a foreign country. Also - there have been 0 sucessful
prosecutions for "illegal decryption" of satellite signals - only for sales
of unauthorized equipment. The authorities know that they are thin ice and
don't want their fig leaf pulled away.
Bodacious
"Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:8lmPa.9655$Ag6.695101@no-spam
>
> "Kevin" <kombat@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F0D4B93.20540A2F@no-spam
> > Commentator wrote:
> > >
> > > (And BTW, you have just reproduced the LAMEST of all the
> > > arguments that people advance to justify piracy.)
> >
> > I noticed you very conspicuously ignored my other 2 questions.
> >
> > Kevin.
>
> Conspicuously?
>
> You posed those questions in an attempt to justify the first, and so I
> considered them irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> Here's why, since you insist on playing games. (And BTW, you have not
> addressed MY comments)
>
> Satellite signals are encrypted. They are not visible, and their presence
> does not affect you in any way. To access them without paying, you make a
> conscious decision to (illegally) decrypt and steal them.
>
> A Rolling Stones concert is not encrypted, therefore it requires no
decision
> to do anything. Normal senses pick up the "signals". The conscious
> decision has to be to IGNORE rather than to STEAL. There are no laws
> against listening to what, in your case, would amount to environmental
> sounds.
>
> The same is true for the drive-in, except the sense is vision instead of
> hearing.
>
> To be clear, I don't care if you do or don't pirate satellite signals - no
> skin off of me. Just don't be such a lamer as to make completely invalid
> comparisons or try to offer inane justifications. If you choose to break
> the law, at least accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
>
> My favorite, though, is the oft-used euphemism "testing", as if that
fools
> anyone.
>
>
"Bodaciuos" <dont.bother@no-spam> wrote in message
news:74qPa.17006$Tx.887032@no-spam
> Your arguements only apply to Cnadian based services as it is against the
> law for US services to sell subscriptions to Canadians, and the CRTC has
> ruled that it is illegal for Canadians to pursue grey-market subscriptions
> (ie using a US billing address).
>
> In this case you are not depriving anyone from revenue,
Whether anyone is being deprived of revenue, although it may be an impetuous
for drafting a particular law, does not define legality.
> and Canadian
> authorities are out of their jurisdiction to rule on decrypting broadcasts
> originating from a foreign country.
Has that been determined by a court decision?
Countries often provide reciprocal protection for businesses, sometimes
explicitly. US courts have been known to try and convict foreign parties
for the breaking of US laws while those parties were not on US soil.
You may be right, but I think you are just making assumptions.
> Also - there have been 0 sucessful
> prosecutions for "illegal decryption" of satellite signals
The lack of successful prosecutions is not the test - have there been
UNsuccessful prosecutions? That would be more telling.
> - only for sales
> of unauthorized equipment. The authorities know that they are thin ice and
> don't want their fig leaf pulled away.
Or, they are just using scarce enforcement bucks where they get the most
bang, as well as recognizing the PR aspects of prosecuting companies versus
individual consumers.
>
> Bodacious
>
> "Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:8lmPa.9655$Ag6.695101@no-spam
> >
> > "Kevin" <kombat@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F0D4B93.20540A2F@no-spam
> > > Commentator wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (And BTW, you have just reproduced the LAMEST of all the
> > > > arguments that people advance to justify piracy.)
> > >
> > > I noticed you very conspicuously ignored my other 2 questions.
> > >
> > > Kevin.
> >
> > Conspicuously?
> >
> > You posed those questions in an attempt to justify the first, and so I
> > considered them irrelevant to the discussion.
> >
> > Here's why, since you insist on playing games. (And BTW, you have not
> > addressed MY comments)
> >
> > Satellite signals are encrypted. They are not visible, and their
presence
> > does not affect you in any way. To access them without paying, you make
a
> > conscious decision to (illegally) decrypt and steal them.
> >
> > A Rolling Stones concert is not encrypted, therefore it requires no
> decision
> > to do anything. Normal senses pick up the "signals". The conscious
> > decision has to be to IGNORE rather than to STEAL. There are no laws
> > against listening to what, in your case, would amount to environmental
> > sounds.
> >
> > The same is true for the drive-in, except the sense is vision instead of
> > hearing.
> >
> > To be clear, I don't care if you do or don't pirate satellite signals -
no
> > skin off of me. Just don't be such a lamer as to make completely
invalid
> > comparisons or try to offer inane justifications. If you choose to
break
> > the law, at least accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
> >
> > My favorite, though, is the oft-used euphemism "testing", as if that
> fools
> > anyone.
> >
> >
>
>
"Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<BcqPa.9797$Ag6.756728@no-spam>...
>
> "Bodaciuos" <dont.bother@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:74qPa.17006$Tx.887032@no-spam
> > Your arguements only apply to Cnadian based services as it is against
the
> > law for US services to sell subscriptions to Canadians, and the CRTC has
> > ruled that it is illegal for Canadians to pursue grey-market
subscriptions
> > (ie using a US billing address).
> >
> > In this case you are not depriving anyone from revenue,
>
> Whether anyone is being deprived of revenue, although it may be an
impetuous
> for drafting a particular law, does not define legality.
So what law are you breaking? Unauthorized decoding of an American encypted
signal? No such law exists. There is a law that prohibits selling of such
equipment and one that prohibits rebroadcast of received signals.
>
> > and Canadian
> > authorities are out of their jurisdiction to rule on decrypting
broadcasts
> > originating from a foreign country.
>
> Has that been determined by a court decision?
They have only pursued vendors that sell decryption devices and
"unauthorized" reveivers.
>
> Countries often provide reciprocal protection for businesses, sometimes
> explicitly. US courts have been known to try and convict foreign parties
> for the breaking of US laws while those parties were not on US soil.
US courts don't give a fig about what Canadians do in Canada. DirectTV has
been lobbying the Canadian government and providing "intelligence"
information to the RCMP. That the authorities have been prodded into action
by a private company's lobbying rather than by an official overture from the
state dept. is frightening.
>
> You may be right, but I think you are just making assumptions.
>
> > Also - there have been 0 sucessful
> > prosecutions for "illegal decryption" of satellite signals
>
> The lack of successful prosecutions is not the test - have there been
> UNsuccessful prosecutions? That would be more telling.
There are many laws that are unenforced because they are obsolete,
unconstitutional or impractical. It's a case of use it or lose it - similar
to the marijana law. There are still "buggery" laws on the books around the
country, are you suggesting that it's illegal to be gay?
Still a test case would remove all doubt, but the government has little to
gain but Rogers and Bell have a lot to lose.
>
> > - only for sales
> > of unauthorized equipment. The authorities know that they are thin ice
and
> > don't want their fig leaf pulled away.
>
> Or, they are just using scarce enforcement bucks where they get the most
> bang, as well as recognizing the PR aspects of prosecuting companies
versus
> individual consumers.
Publicizing a couple of successful procescutions of end users would send a
chill through everyone and really cut down use of US systems. If only the
dealers get hit, the end users just move to the next dealer that springs up
(they always do). It's similar to what happened during prohibition in the
US - it was illegal to sell booze, but if somehow you found yourself holding
a glass full, it was perfectly legal to drink it. As a result demand never
dropped.
Have you ever wondered why it's Rogers that is promoting the propaganda
campaign? It wants to keep subcribers on their cable while Bell figures that
once you switch to satellite delivered services, you won't go back.
Bodacious
"Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:_nYPa.11634$ru2.1237425@no-spam
>
> It is clear to me that you miss the point completely. The fact of the
> matter is that whatever "label" you want to place on it, decrypting
> satellite signals without a subscription is theft. The existing laws may
or
> may not be equipped to effectively deal with that, but this does not
change
> the nature of what is happening. The current lack of prosecutions does
not
> mean the laws are unenforceable, only that they have not yet been
enforced.
> Canadian pirates of satellite signals are as likely if not more likely to
be
> stealing ExpressVu signals as they are DirecTV signals - in no small part
> because ExpressVu does not engage in the level of ECM activity that
DirecTV
> does.
Obviously you have no true concept of what theft is. Try this link:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l007.htm
You cannot "steal" radio signals. There is no theft going on. What is going
on is infrigement of distribution rights. A satellite provider is acting as
a proxy for the TSNs, CBCs Much Music etc. and charging an overhead to it's
subscribers. It also proxies the Canadian distribution rights for
pay-per-view movies on their system. Cable companies also do this. The only
content that the Canadian providers own is their "local" channels guides
etc.
Since there is no cable to tie into there is no issue of tresspassing, so
the only transgression is unauthorized access to the channel guide and
infrigement of canadian distribution rights of some of the Canadian content.
While this is a trival issue, it still is a violation of Expressview
copyright, and the authorities can rightly procecute those that violate the
copyright and those that sell equipment that allow them to do it. The value
of this infrigement would be so small that a court would dismiss the case.
That is why individuals will never be prosecuted.
American providers are in a different boat. They are not authorized to
distribute their signal into Canada. As such there is no violation of
copyright or distribution since there are no Canadian services on the US
systems. The only debatable issue is potential loss of royalities from
pay-per-view services and the injured party in this case would be the
Canadian distribution rights holder.
If you want to pass moral judgement on these individuals be my guest. If you
want to call them theives you are bordering on slander and you yourself are
committing a more serious offence than you protest against.
Bodacious
> There is a valid debate about whether it is legal to decrypt US signals,
but
> the answer is not certain. The answer about Canadians decrypting Canadian
> signals is quite certain. It IS illegal, and just because an individual
has
> not yet been successfully prosecuted does not make it legal.
>
> If someone is going to steal satellite signals, they should at least have
> the balls to admit that what they are doing is illegal. Mealy-mouthed
> protestations and justifications like those that have been posted here and
> offered elsewhere are intellectually dishonest and fool nobody. If you
> don't like the label "thief", don't steal.
>
>
"Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:tD5Qa.23017$Tx.1223142@no-spam
> because, the audacity! they beam it onto your property without your
> permission, and the nerve! they expect to get reimbursed for the costs
they
> incur in distributing the signal, with a small profit stipend for their
> trouble.
Well, there is where it gets a little sticky.
They want to reimursed for an unwanted signal....?
Commentator wrote:
> "Stephen Bigelow" <sbigelowXLS@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:KQeQa.21542$lJd1.9224@no-spam
>
>>"Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
>>news:tD5Qa.23017$Tx.1223142@no-spam
>>
>>
>>>because, the audacity! they beam it onto your property without your
>>>permission, and the nerve! they expect to get reimbursed for the costs
>>
>>they
>>
>>>incur in distributing the signal, with a small profit stipend for their
>>>trouble.
>>
>>Well, there is where it gets a little sticky.
>>They want to reimursed for an unwanted signal....?
>>
>
>
> As if you have to take delivery off it? As if you can without illegally
> decrypting it?
>
>
my braces are picking up the signal, the noise is driving me KRAZZZZZY!
"Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:tD5Qa.23017$Tx.1223142@no-spam
>
> "Bodaciuos" <dont.bother@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:k14Qa.22737$Tx.1202904@no-spam
> >
> > "Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:_nYPa.11634$ru2.1237425@no-spam
> > >
> > > It is clear to me that you miss the point completely. The fact of the
> > > matter is that whatever "label" you want to place on it, decrypting
> > > satellite signals without a subscription is theft. The existing laws
> may
> > or
> > > may not be equipped to effectively deal with that, but this does not
> > change
> > > the nature of what is happening. The current lack of prosecutions
does
> > not
> > > mean the laws are unenforceable, only that they have not yet been
> > enforced.
> > > Canadian pirates of satellite signals are as likely if not more likely
> to
> > be
> > > stealing ExpressVu signals as they are DirecTV signals - in no small
> part
> > > because ExpressVu does not engage in the level of ECM activity that
> > DirecTV
> > > does.
> >
> > Obviously you have no true concept of what theft is. Try this link:
> > http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l007.htm
> >
> > You cannot "steal" radio signals. There is no theft going on. What is
> going
> > on is infrigement of distribution rights.
>
> The "receipt" of the signal is not what is illegal. The breaking of the
> encryption is what is illegal. There are laws against this.
Ah, so it's not theft, then you should stop calling it that.
>
> > A satellite provider is acting as
> > a proxy for the TSNs, CBCs Much Music etc. and charging an overhead to
> it's
> > subscribers. It also proxies the Canadian distribution rights for
> > pay-per-view movies on their system. Cable companies also do this. The
> only
> > content that the Canadian providers own is their "local" channels guides
> > etc.
> >
> > Since there is no cable to tie into there is no issue of tresspassing,
so
> > the only transgression is unauthorized access to the channel guide and
> > infrigement of canadian distribution rights of some of the Canadian
> content.
> > While this is a trival issue, it still is a violation of Expressview
> > copyright,
>
> It is not just a violation of copyright; it is also unauthorized and
> *illegal* decryption of an encrypted signal.
The problem is the government has made it illegal for Canadians to authorize
their equipment. In essence you have a dichotomy - It is illegal (your
definition) to decrypt signal without having been authorized, but there is
no possible avenue to legally authorize them. I won't even bother to blow
you out of the water with your decryption arguement since all receivers do
this right out of the box without modification.
>
> Your attempts to rationalize this does not change anything.
Except to see you squirm to come up with logical arguements as opposed to
moral indignation.
>
> > and the authorities can rightly procecute those that violate the
> > copyright and those that sell equipment that allow them to do it. The
> value
> > of this infrigement would be so small that a court would dismiss the
case.
> > That is why individuals will never be prosecuted.
>
> Regardless of the value, regardless of whether a prosecution is actually
> brought, does not change the illegality of the activity.
>
I'm not claiming that "hacking" Canadian services is "illegal", I very
clearly stated that it does infringe on several regulations. If you want to
be morally indignant about speeders and kids who download music be my guest,
however please use another forum as this one has enough spam in it already.
> >
> > American providers are in a different boat. They are not authorized to
> > distribute their signal into Canada. As such there is no violation of
> > copyright or distribution since there are no Canadian services on the US
> > systems. The only debatable issue is potential loss of royalities from
> > pay-per-view services and the injured party in this case would be the
> > Canadian distribution rights holder.
> >
> > If you want to pass moral judgement on these individuals be my guest.
>
> I am not passing moral judgment. In fact, I said in a previous post in
this
> thread "To be clear, I don't care if you do or don't pirate satellite
> signals - no
> skin off of me." That hardly indicates my passing a moral judgment. What
I
> am simply saying here is that the activity is illegal, regardless of the
> protestations of you and others. It annoys me when people engage in
illegal
> activity and construct justifications to make it sound "OK". It does not
> morally outrage me. It simply annoys me that people can be so dishonest
> with themselves, and, quite frankly, makes me question the validity of
> *anything* they have to say on *any* topic. It destroys their
credibility..
> If you are going to break the law, at least have the balls to own up to
what
> you are doing.
Perhaps english is a 2nd language to you, but I clearly stated that
unauthorized reception of canadian services is against regulations. Rather
that be annoyed, I am amused when people like you pass judgement on a
clearly ambigous situation which the courts will not touch with a 20 foot
pole.
>
> > If you
> > want to call them theives you are bordering on slander and you yourself
> are
> > committing a more serious offence than you protest against.
>
> OK then. You are obviously one of those without balls who likes to
pretend
> hacking satellite signals is not stealing, it is "testing" and is
justified
> because, the audacity! they beam it onto your property without your
> permission, and the nerve! they expect to get reimbursed for the costs
they
> incur in distributing the signal, with a small profit stipend for their
> trouble.
>
> Now, since you like definitions so much, try looking up slander here:
> http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm
>
> Laws are on the books that state quite clearly that it is common thivery
to
> decrypt sattelite signals without authorization. Since slander is a
"false
> defamation", and calling someone a thief who contravenes those laws is
> hardly false.....
Apples and oranges, It's like saying speeding is the same thing as theft.
BTW the law does not thivery - you are making things up.
>
> >
> > Bodacious
> >
> >
> > > There is a valid debate about whether it is legal to decrypt US
signals,
> > but
> > > the answer is not certain. The answer about Canadians decrypting
> Canadian
> > > signals is quite certain. It IS illegal, and just because an
individual
> > has
> > > not yet been successfully prosecuted does not make it legal.
Sigh, read closer next time
> > >
> > > If someone is going to steal satellite signals, they should at least
> have
> > > the balls to admit that what they are doing is illegal. Mealy-mouthed
> > > protestations and justifications like those that have been posted here
> and
> > > offered elsewhere are intellectually dishonest and fool nobody. If
you
> > > don't like the label "thief", don't steal.
If you don't understand the concept of theft, don't moralize
Bodacious
"Bodaciuos" <dont.bother@no-spam> wrote in message
news:21oQa.1318$104.104708@no-spam
>
> "Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:tD5Qa.23017$Tx.1223142@no-spam
> >
> > "Bodaciuos" <dont.bother@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:k14Qa.22737$Tx.1202904@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Commentator" <commentator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:_nYPa.11634$ru2.1237425@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > It is clear to me that you miss the point completely. The fact of
the
> > > > matter is that whatever "label" you want to place on it, decrypting
> > > > satellite signals without a subscription is theft. The existing
laws
> > may
> > > or
> > > > may not be equipped to effectively deal with that, but this does not
> > > change
> > > > the nature of what is happening. The current lack of prosecutions
> does
> > > not
> > > > mean the laws are unenforceable, only that they have not yet been
> > > enforced.
> > > > Canadian pirates of satellite signals are as likely if not more
likely
> > to
> > > be
> > > > stealing ExpressVu signals as they are DirecTV signals - in no small
> > part
> > > > because ExpressVu does not engage in the level of ECM activity that
> > > DirecTV
> > > > does.
> > >
> > > Obviously you have no true concept of what theft is. Try this link:
> > > http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l007.htm
> > >
> > > You cannot "steal" radio signals. There is no theft going on. What is
> > going
> > > on is infrigement of distribution rights.
> >
> > The "receipt" of the signal is not what is illegal. The breaking of the
> > encryption is what is illegal. There are laws against this.
>
> Ah, so it's not theft, then you should stop calling it that.
Ah, so you are more interested in playing games than dealing with substance.
> >
> > > A satellite provider is acting as
> > > a proxy for the TSNs, CBCs Much Music etc. and charging an overhead to
> > it's
> > > subscribers. It also proxies the Canadian distribution rights for
> > > pay-per-view movies on their system. Cable companies also do this. The
> > only
> > > content that the Canadian providers own is their "local" channels
guides
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Since there is no cable to tie into there is no issue of tresspassing,
> so
> > > the only transgression is unauthorized access to the channel guide and
> > > infrigement of canadian distribution rights of some of the Canadian
> > content.
> > > While this is a trival issue, it still is a violation of Expressview
> > > copyright,
> >
> > It is not just a violation of copyright; it is also unauthorized and
> > *illegal* decryption of an encrypted signal.
>
> The problem is the government has made it illegal for Canadians to
authorize
> their equipment. In essence you have a dichotomy - It is illegal (your
> definition) to decrypt signal without having been authorized, but there is
> no possible avenue to legally authorize them. I won't even bother to blow
> you out of the water with your decryption arguement since all receivers do
> this right out of the box without modification.
More games. See if you can follow this: You call BEV. They enter a code
into the stream to authorize your card. Your card decrypts nothing until it
gets that code.
Receivers cannot decrypt without an authorized card.
You are just being as ass.
> >
> > Your attempts to rationalize this does not change anything.
> Except to see you squirm to come up with logical arguements as opposed to
> moral indignation.
> >
> > > and the authorities can rightly procecute those that violate the
> > > copyright and those that sell equipment that allow them to do it. The
> > value
> > > of this infrigement would be so small that a court would dismiss the
> case.
> > > That is why individuals will never be prosecuted.
> >
> > Regardless of the value, regardless of whether a prosecution is actually
> > brought, does not change the illegality of the activity.
> >
> I'm not claiming that "hacking" Canadian services is "illegal", I very
> clearly stated that it does infringe on several regulations. If you want
to
> be morally indignant about speeders and kids who download music be my
guest,
> however please use another forum as this one has enough spam in it
already.
Sigh. The only moral indignation here seems to be on your part. I have
stated several times that I really don't care whether people do it. How is
that moral indignation?
> > >
> > > American providers are in a different boat. They are not authorized to
> > > distribute their signal into Canada. As such there is no violation of
> > > copyright or distribution since there are no Canadian services on the
US
> > > systems. The only debatable issue is potential loss of royalities from
> > > pay-per-view services and the injured party in this case would be the
> > > Canadian distribution rights holder.
> > >
> > > If you want to pass moral judgement on these individuals be my guest.
> >
> > I am not passing moral judgment. In fact, I said in a previous post in
> this
> > thread "To be clear, I don't care if you do or don't pirate satellite
> > signals - no
> > skin off of me." That hardly indicates my passing a moral judgment.
What
> I
> > am simply saying here is that the activity is illegal, regardless of the
> > protestations of you and others. It annoys me when people engage in
> illegal
> > activity and construct justifications to make it sound "OK". It does
not
> > morally outrage me. It simply annoys me that people can be so dishonest
> > with themselves, and, quite frankly, makes me question the validity of
> > *anything* they have to say on *any* topic. It destroys their
> credibility..
> > If you are going to break the law, at least have the balls to own up to
> what
> > you are doing.
>
> Perhaps english is a 2nd language to you, but I clearly stated that
> unauthorized reception of canadian services is against regulations. Rather
> that be annoyed, I am amused when people like you pass judgement on a
> clearly ambigous situation which the courts will not touch with a 20 foot
> pole.
Take a reading comprehension course, then try reading my words again: I am
*not* passing judgment on anything; I am merely suggesting that clowns like
you have the balls to call an illegal activity illegal rather than play
games trying to justify your actions. Like you continue to do here.
As to whether the courts would touch it...
Newsflash: the COURTS do not bring charges. If a complaint is brought, the
courts will hear it and the law will be tested.
> >
> > > If you
> > > want to call them theives you are bordering on slander and you
yourself
> > are
> > > committing a more serious offence than you protest against.
> >
> > OK then. You are obviously one of those without balls who likes to
> pretend
> > hacking satellite signals is not stealing, it is "testing" and is
> justified
> > because, the audacity! they beam it onto your property without your
> > permission, and the nerve! they expect to get reimbursed for the costs
> they
> > incur in distributing the signal, with a small profit stipend for their
> > trouble.
> >
> > Now, since you like definitions so much, try looking up slander here:
> > http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm
> >
> > Laws are on the books that state quite clearly that it is common thivery
> to
> > decrypt sattelite signals without authorization. Since slander is a
> "false
> > defamation", and calling someone a thief who contravenes those laws is
> > hardly false.....
>
> Apples and oranges, It's like saying speeding is the same thing as theft.
> BTW the law does not thivery - you are making things up.
OK. If you say so.
There. Feel better now?
> >
> > >
> > > Bodacious
> > >
> > >
> > > > There is a valid debate about whether it is legal to decrypt US
> signals,
> > > but
> > > > the answer is not certain. The answer about Canadians decrypting
> > Canadian
> > > > signals is quite certain. It IS illegal, and just because an
> individual
> > > has
> > > > not yet been successfully prosecuted does not make it legal.
> Sigh, read closer next time
> > > >
> > > > If someone is going to steal satellite signals, they should at least
> > have
> > > > the balls to admit that what they are doing is illegal.
Mealy-mouthed
> > > > protestations and justifications like those that have been posted
here
> > and
> > > > offered elsewhere are intellectually dishonest and fool nobody. If
> you
> > > > don't like the label "thief", don't steal.
>
> If you don't understand the concept of theft, don't moralize
>
> Bodacious
>
If you can't understand the concept of moralization, don't use it as a
label.
I understand the concept of theft quite well.
I also understand that you are clearly only interested in playing games and
should not be taken seriously by anyone with a brain. This is why I am
ending this conversation with you, and offering you the opportunity to have
the last word.
Go for it.