Home Repair forum - Stealing satellite

Author

Stealing satellite

Sigmand

2008-01-23, 9:25 pm

I have a hypothetical friend. He has subscribed to both Dish Network
and Direct TV in the past. He currently has the Dish Network network
dish mounted on his house and is subscribed to cable. He also has a
hypothetical friend that currently subscribes to Direct TV. He wonders
out loud what would happen if he borrowed the extra box that is hardly
used from his friend.

Are both disks the same. Would one box work with the other's dish?
Would the box work if he climbed up on the house and changed the dish
back to Direct TV?

G. Morgan

2008-01-24, 3:25 am

Sigmand wrote:

>I have a hypothetical friend. He has subscribed to both Dish Network
>and Direct TV in the past. He currently has the Dish Network network
>dish mounted on his house and is subscribed to cable. He also has a
>hypothetical friend that currently subscribes to Direct TV. He wonders
>out loud what would happen if he borrowed the extra box that is hardly
>used from his friend.
>
>Are both disks the same. Would one box work with the other's dish?
>Would the box work if he climbed up on the house and changed the dish
>back to Direct TV?

Since both providers have birds @ 119.0°W you can use the same dish
and LNB provided they are legacy type and not 'dishpro twin'.

If you really want a fun hobby:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysq2sf

--

-G

hallerb@aol.com

2008-01-24, 5:25 pm

On Jan 23, 9:37=EF=BF=BDpm, Sigmand <somed...@no.spam> wrote:
> I have a hypothetical friend. =EF=BF=BDHe has subscribed to both Dish Netw=
ork
> and Direct TV in the past. =EF=BF=BDHe currently has the Dish Network netw=
ork
> dish mounted on his house and is subscribed to cable. =EF=BF=BDHe also has=
a
> hypothetical friend that currently subscribes to Direct TV. =EF=BF=BDHe wo=
nders
> out loud what would happen if he borrowed the extra box that is hardly
> used from his friend.
>
> Are both disks the same. =EF=BF=BDWould one box work with the other's dish=
?
> Would the box work if he climbed up on the house and changed the dish
> back to Direct TV?

direct and dish try to require constant phone line connection of all
receivers, unplugged too long the provider can turn the box off. of
course its theft of service, but you already know that.

if both locations have DSL you can slingbox the sat feed to the other
location

---MIKE---

2008-01-24, 8:25 pm

>>direct and dish try to require constant[color=darkred]

I have had dish for years and have no phone connection. This is only
needed if you want to purchase a PPV program.

---MIKE---[color=darkred]

JimmyDahGeek@DON'T_SPAM_ME_gmail.com

2008-01-24, 8:25 pm

> I have had dish for years and have no phone connection. This is only
> needed if you want to purchase a PPV program.

BUT if it is hooked up to a phone line it does call out and on some of
the phone calls it provides the provider with the phone number that it
is calling from. I wouldn't do it, It's stealing.

Cliff Hartle

2008-01-24, 9:25 pm

The receiver won't work unless you pay your bill or deal with web sites like
this.

http://www.satellitesdirecttvdishne...script-hack.htm

When you stop paying your bill they do something to the receiver to turn it
off.

I don't know if they still do it this way, but the receivers had a card in
them. You could purchase a hacked card that would give you access until the
sat company defeated them and you would have to get a new card. The other
way to get this card was to get one that could be reprogrammed. I was once
in a house that had a cable running from their receiver to a old computer
that kept the card up to date.

Its explained a little bit here.

http://www.tech-faq.com/signal-theft.shtml

"Sigmand" <somedude@no.spam> wrote in message news:fn8tl6$986$1@aioe.org...
>I have a hypothetical friend. He has subscribed to both Dish Network and
>Direct TV in the past. He currently has the Dish Network network dish
>mounted on his house and is subscribed to cable. He also has a
>hypothetical friend that currently subscribes to Direct TV. He wonders out
>loud what would happen if he borrowed the extra box that is hardly used
>from his friend.
>
> Are both disks the same. Would one box work with the other's dish? Would
> the box work if he climbed up on the house and changed the dish back to
> Direct TV?

hallerb@aol.com

2008-01-24, 9:25 pm

On Jan 24, 9:52=EF=BF=BDpm, "Cliff Hartle" <ckn...@msn.com> wrote:
> The receiver won't work unless you pay your bill or deal with web sites li=
ke
> this.
>
> http://www.satellitesdirecttvdishne...tellite/priv...
>
> When you stop paying your bill they do something to the receiver to turn i=
t
> off.
>
> I don't know if they still do it this way, but the receivers had a card in=

> them. =EF=BF=BDYou could purchase a hacked card that would give you access=
until the
> sat company defeated them and you would have to get a new card. The other
> way to get this card was to get one that could be reprogrammed. =EF=BF=BDI=
was once
> in a house that had a cable running from their receiver to a old computer
> that kept the card up to date.
>
> Its explained a little bit here.
>
> http://www.tech-faq.com/signal-theft.shtml
>
>
>
> "Sigmand" <somed...@no.spam> wrote in messagenews:fn8tl6$986$1@aioe.org...=

work and[color=darkred]
dish[color=darkred]
onders out[color=darkred]
>
sh? Would[color=darkred]
>
> - Show quoted text -

why does anyone think its OK to steal satellite tv? would you steal
your neighbors car? rip off stuff from the grocery store?

hallerb@aol.com

2008-01-24, 9:25 pm

direct tv busts the sellers, and gives them a little off their jail
sentence to provide a customer list. direct then sends bills for like
5 grand, and gives the thieves a couple months to pay or be charged
for criminal activity.

do you want your name in the local paper as a thief?

this has occured.

Terry

2008-01-25, 3:25 am

On Jan 24, 10:18=C2=A0pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:52=EF=BF=BDpm, "Cliff Hartle" <ckn...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
like[color=darkred]
>
>
it[color=darkred]
>
in[color=darkred]
ss until the[color=darkred]
r[color=darkred]
=BDI was once[color=darkred]
r[color=darkred]
>
>
>
...[color=darkred]
etwork and[color=darkred]
rk dish[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
wonders out[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
dish? Would[color=darkred]
o[color=darkred]
>
>
> why does anyone think its OK to steal satellite tv? would you steal
> your neighbors car? rip off stuff from the grocery store

If you steal your neighbors car he no longer has it.

If you tune in cable channels no one has lost anything tangible.

Cable companies call it stealing, but it is not the same thing.

Smitty Two

2008-01-25, 3:25 am

In article
<589001c1-5054-499c-9f9e-d49f77bfec5c@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Terry <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote:

> Cable companies call it stealing, but it is not the same thing.

You're right of course. Crime is in the eye of the beholder. Now send
your seventeen year old daughter over to my house, and she and I will
have consensual sex, and I won't call it rape.

HeyBub

2008-01-25, 9:26 am

Terry wrote:
>
> If you steal your neighbors car he no longer has it.
>
> If you tune in cable channels no one has lost anything tangible.
>
> Cable companies call it stealing, but it is not the same thing.

So, if you rape someone, and she still has it...

Terry

2008-01-25, 9:26 am

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:15:31 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Terry wrote:
>
>So, if you rape someone, and she still has it...
>
I have to admit that is a really good analogy.

But since they do still have it, I can't see why they can be so stingy
with it.

Jim Yanik

2008-01-25, 9:26 am

"hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in
news:608f5436-bf8b-422e-94c0-3b3535dcb8ee@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> why does anyone think its OK to steal satellite tv?

when a company mails a product to your house unsolicited,you are under no
obligation to pay for it,you can keep it and use it as you wish,it's not
"stealing".
Broadcast RF signals are beamed across the entire country.
They rent you the device to decode the signals that are already in your
home.If you provide your own receiver/decoder.....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Sanity

2008-01-25, 9:26 am

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3062B5D5E5Ajyanikkuanet@64.209.0.84...
> "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in
> news:608f5436-bf8b-422e-94c0-3b3535dcb8ee@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
> when a company mails a product to your house unsolicited,you are under no
> obligation to pay for it,you can keep it and use it as you wish,it's not
> "stealing".
> Broadcast RF signals are beamed across the entire country.
> They rent you the device to decode the signals that are already in your
> home.If you provide your own receiver/decoder.....
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

You can justify anything you want to. Electricity is delivered to your
house. Why not just bypass the meter and use it. It's there, isn't it?
Theft of service is just that. You are stealing something that doesn't
belong to you and trying to justify it by saying it's there for the taking.
Don't forget to teach your kids that theory. If this country needs more of
something it's thieves and unethical people.

Floyd L. Davidson

2008-01-25, 9:26 am

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>"hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in
>news:608f5436-bf8b-422e-94c0-3b3535dcb8ee@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>when a company mails a product to your house unsolicited,you are under no
>obligation to pay for it,you can keep it and use it as you wish,it's not
>"stealing".
>Broadcast RF signals are beamed across the entire country.
>They rent you the device to decode the signals that are already in your
>home.If you provide your own receiver/decoder.....

If you provide your own receiver/decoder... and don't
pay the bill you are stealing their service.

Make up all the silly "logic" you want to claim
otherwise, but every judge in the country will rule for
them and order you to pay up.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Sam E

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:49:37 -0800 (PST), Terry <kilowatt@charter.net>
wrote:

>On Jan 24, 10:18_pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>If you steal your neighbors car he no longer has it.
>
>If you tune in cable channels no one has lost anything tangible.
>
>Cable companies call it stealing, but it is not the same thing.

Of course it isn't, despite the ridiculous claims otherwise. This
includes claims from our business-controlled government.

Sam E

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:49:30 -0500, "Sanity" <sanerthanyou@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
>news:Xns9A3062B5D5E5Ajyanikkuanet@64.209.0.84...
>
>You can justify anything you want to. Electricity is delivered to your
>house. Why not just bypass the meter and use it. It's there, isn't it?
>Theft of service is just that.You are stealing something that doesn't
>belong to you and trying to justify it by saying it's there for the taking.
>Don't forget to teach your kids that theory. If this country needs more of
>something it's thieves and unethical people.
>

IT IS NOT AT ALL THE SAME!! That use of electricity has a significant
effect on the provider (increasing the load on their equipment).
That's not at all comparable to reception of satellite signals, having
only a negligible effect on the source.

Try thinking before you repeat that garbage.

And, of course, I said NOTHING of anything being right or wrong, but
about defining something as "stealing" (don't you know other things
can be wrong?).

I am responsible for what I say. However, I can not be responsible for
others' demented imagination, including the serious misreading of the
above.

Sam E

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:55:10 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>If you provide your own receiver/decoder... and don't
>pay the bill you are stealing their service.
>

Try explaining THAT without any nonsense. If you try to use "lost
profits", what the **** was that company you don't pay doing with YUOR
money?

"stealing" is a transaction between parties, without A's permission,
in which A no longer has something and B now does. In the case of
unauthorized reception of satellite TV, party 'B' not has the content.
'A' had it before AND STILL DOES exactly as before.

[snip with no comment]

Gary H

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:55:10 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>If you provide your own receiver/decoder... and don't
>pay the bill you are stealing their service.
>
>Make up all the silly "logic" you want to claim
>otherwise, but every judge in the country will rule for
>them and order you to pay up.

So, an accurate description of reality is "silly"? That's the sort of
thing that happens when people mindlessly repeat corporate bullshit.

Then, you try to enforce your bullshit through references to the
justice system, essentially big bullies.

BTW, there is the slight possibility that your brain will start
working someday. See you them.

Sanity

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

"Sam E" <no.email@all.invalid> wrote in message
news:sh3kp3hed0h6cvan5qu0oq3gh8s2tt9ual@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:49:30 -0500, "Sanity" <sanerthanyou@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> IT IS NOT AT ALL THE SAME!! That use of electricity has a significant
> effect on the provider (increasing the load on their equipment).
> That's not at all comparable to reception of satellite signals, having
> only a negligible effect on the source.
>
> Try thinking before you repeat that garbage.
>
> And, of course, I said NOTHING of anything being right or wrong, but
> about defining something as "stealing" (don't you know other things
> can be wrong?).
>
> I am responsible for what I say. However, I can not be responsible for
> others' demented imagination, including the serious misreading of the
> above.

I guess with your warped thinking you could justify murder (getting rid of
scum to stop them from polluting).

Floyd L. Davidson

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Sam E <no.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:55:10 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>
>Try explaining THAT without any nonsense. If you try to use "lost
>profits", what the **** was that company you don't pay doing with YUOR
>money?
>
>"stealing" is a transaction between parties, without A's permission,
>in which A no longer has something and B now does. In the case of
>unauthorized reception of satellite TV, party 'B' not has the content.
>'A' had it before AND STILL DOES exactly as before.
>
>[snip with no comment]

The fact is that the courts will put you pronounce you
"Guilty".

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

In article <sh3kp3hed0h6cvan5qu0oq3gh8s2tt9ual@4ax.com>,
Sam E <no.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> IT IS NOT AT ALL THE SAME!! That use of electricity has a significant
> effect on the provider (increasing the load on their equipment).
> That's not at all comparable to reception of satellite signals, having
> only a negligible effect on the source.
Yeah its not like they have to pay for the satellites of the
electricity to run the place or the programming or anything. It just
sorta appears out of thin air and you availing yourself of the stuff for
free doesn't really hurt anyone. Sorta like shoplifting in that someone
has to pay for "negligible effect".

>
> Try thinking before you repeat that garbage.
Might be a good idea.

> And, of course, I said NOTHING of anything being right or wrong, but
> about defining something as "stealing" (don't you know other things
> can be wrong?).
>
You are stealing by any normal definition, except for those who are
really trying to convince themselves of something.

> I am responsible for what I say. However, I can not be responsible for
> others' demented imagination, including the serious misreading of the
> above.

SteveB

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

"Sanity" <sanerthanyou@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PGmmj.73052$rc2.5934@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A3062B5D5E5Ajyanikkuanet@64.209.0.84...
>
> You can justify anything you want to. Electricity is delivered to your
> house. Why not just bypass the meter and use it. It's there, isn't it?
> Theft of service is just that. You are stealing something that doesn't
> belong to you and trying to justify it by saying it's there for the
> taking. Don't forget to teach your kids that theory. If this country needs
> more of something it's thieves and unethical people.
>

You forgot to add ........... "without consciences to know what they are
doing is wrong because that's what they saw their trailer trash parents
doing." (NOT talking down to those who live in manufactured homes .........
I grew up in one ........... but to the trailer trash no matter how big a
house they live in.

Steve

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

In article <4pgp65-62h.ln1@news.infowest.com>,
"SteveB" <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:
]
> So, is that the same as going to a library, checking out a book, copying it,
> and returning the book. I mean, they have the book back, don't they?
>
But the author loses out on royalty if you bought the book. Since you
took the time and effort to copy the book, you must want to keep a copy
and that is theft (okay technically copyright violation..)

SteveB

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

[color=darkred]

I wholeheartedly agree. It isn't stealing. It's just plain vanilla
dishonest. Dishonest people can be dishonest and yet not steal. They just
do a variety of other activities.

A man and woman are not married to each other. They check into a motel.
The clerk asks, "Are you married", and they both answer yes at the same
time. Are they being honest?

No. If they were honest, they wouldn't be there in the first place.

Beware of a man who says he's honest. He's likely to lie about other
things.

Twain or Rogers

Steve

Jim Yanik

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

"Sanity" <sanerthanyou@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Bmomj.73096$rc2.3181@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

>
> "Sam E" <no.email@all.invalid> wrote in message
> news:sh3kp3hed0h6cvan5qu0oq3gh8s2tt9ual@4ax.com...

Satellite signals are beamed into my house regardless of whether I want
them or not.That's a huge difference compared to connecting to a utility
service.Those are only connnected when you request the service.
[color=darkred]
>
> I guess with your warped thinking you could justify murder (getting
> rid of scum to stop them from polluting).
>
>
>

Today I read about a police officer making a comment about "public service
homicide",about a gang member getting killed.

Of course,there's a difference between "murder" and killing.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kurtullman-
B087F0.11524025012008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:

> In article <sh3kp3hed0h6cvan5qu0oq3gh8s2tt9ual@4ax.com>,
> Sam E <no.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Yeah its not like they have to pay for the satellites of the
> electricity to run the place or the programming or anything. It just
> sorta appears out of thin air and you availing yourself of the stuff for
> free doesn't really hurt anyone. Sorta like shoplifting in that someone
> has to pay for "negligible effect".

As I said previously,they ALREADY are putting their satellite signal into
my home;It's paid for regardless whether I rent one of their decoder boxes.
My providing my own decoder does not increase their costs in any way.

It's no different than charging me for sunlight.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Sam E <no.email@all.invalid> wrote in
news:9b3kp31hf7gc9abo2ureb0t24ger7pern6@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:49:37 -0800 (PST), Terry <kilowatt@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Of course it isn't, despite the ridiculous claims otherwise. This
> includes claims from our business-controlled government.
>

there's a big difference between CABLE TV and SATELLITE TV.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

In article <Xns9A307AFB69734jyanikkuanet@64.209.0.83>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>
>
> Today I read about a police officer making a comment about "public service
> homicide",about a gang member getting killed.
>

AKA misdemeanor murder.

Jim Yanik

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

"SteveB" <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote in
news:4pgp65-62h.ln1@news.infowest.com:

>
> "Terry" <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:589001c1-5054-499c-9f9e-d49f77bfec5c@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Jan 24, 10:18 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> If you steal your neighbors car he no longer has it.
>
> If you tune in cable channels no one has lost anything tangible.
>
> Cable companies call it stealing, but it is not the same thing.
>
> So, is that the same as going to a library, checking out a book,
> copying it, and returning the book. I mean, they have the book back,
> don't they?
>
> Steve
>
>
>

there's a big difference between -cable- and SATELLITE.
One requires you string a cable to your home to get the signal,the other
doesn't,the signal is there no matter what you do,whether you want it or
not.

Satellite TV is no different than the power company charging for sunlight
when you put in your own solar panels.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

In article <Xns9A307B9D16F6Ajyanikkuanet@64.209.0.83>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

> As I said previously,they ALREADY are putting their satellite signal into
> my home;It's paid for regardless whether I rent one of their decoder boxes.
> My providing my own decoder does not increase their costs in any way.
>
> It's no different than charging me for sunlight.

Of course it is. Sunlight is passive. You can enjoy it by merely going
outside or even looking outside. But in order to get cable signals, you
have to do something active. You have to get special equipment, you have
to find away around the security systems (which alone should tell you
something). About the only way the two are remotely the same is if you
start getting cable signals through your braces.

INSPECTOR via HomeKB.com

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Sigmand wrote:
>I have a hypothetical friend. He has subscribed to both Dish Network
>and Direct TV in the past. He currently has the Dish Network network
>dish mounted on his house and is subscribed to cable. He also has a
>hypothetical friend that currently subscribes to Direct TV. He wonders
>out loud what would happen if he borrowed the extra box that is hardly
>used from his friend.
>
>Are both disks the same. Would one box work with the other's dish?
>Would the box work if he climbed up on the house and changed the dish
>back to Direct TV?

I used to work installing direct TV satellite equipment, when a customer
wants ppv or there is two boxes hooked up then the phone line is also
connected. This is done also to monitor the presence of the second box so it
cannot be loaned out to a neighbor.

--
Message posted via HomeKB.com
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/repair/200801/1

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

In article <Xns9A307BCE2654Bjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.83>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

> there's a big difference between CABLE TV and SATELLITE TV.

The biggest being one is what you want to get for free and other is
something someone else wants to get for free.

Floyd L. Davidson

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Gary H <garyh@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:55:10 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>
>So, an accurate description of reality is "silly"? That's the sort of
>thing that happens when people mindlessly repeat corporate bullshit.

That description is not accurate, nor is it reality. It
*is* silly though.

It isn't "corporate bullshit", it's the law.

>Then, you try to enforce your bullshit through references to the
>justice system, essentially big bullies.

Yeah, that is true. If they decide you're acting on
your silly ideas, they put you in jail to let you
contemplate reality. That's after they laugh at the
above description when it is cited as a defense.

>BTW, there is the slight possibility that your brain
>will start working someday. See you them.

That's okay. Your's doesn't appear to have that
possibility.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Terry

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <Xns9A307B9D16F6Ajyanikkuanet@64.209.0.83>,
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course it is. Sunlight is passive. You can enjoy it by merely going
>outside or even looking outside. But in order to get cable signals, you
>have to do something active. You have to get special equipment, you have
>to find away around the security systems (which alone should tell you
>something). About the only way the two are remotely the same is if you
>start getting cable signals through your braces.

What about sitting outside drive ins (they do still exist) and
watching the movie. Is that stealing? Would it be stealing if you
used a scaffold?

Dan Espen

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> writes:

> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kurtullman-
> B087F0.11524025012008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:
>
>
> As I said previously,they ALREADY are putting their satellite signal into
> my home;It's paid for regardless whether I rent one of their decoder boxes.
> My providing my own decoder does not increase their costs in any way.
>
> It's no different than charging me for sunlight.

Welcome to alt.home.repair where we offer home repair advice and
try to guide the ethically challenged to a better way of life.

If the corporation that made the sun sent you a bill,
I guess you wouldn't pay it?

Jim Yanik

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kurtullman-1BC230.12204525012008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:

> In article <Xns9A307B9D16F6Ajyanikkuanet@64.209.0.83>,
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course it is. Sunlight is passive. You can enjoy it by merely
> going
> outside or even looking outside. But in order to get cable signals,

UH,the discussion was about SATELLITE;no different than sunlight.

CABLE is a hard-wired system you have to CONNECT to.Like putting a tap on
the water or electric mains.

> you have to do something active. You have to get special equipment,
> you have to find away around the security systems (which alone should
> tell you something). About the only way the two are remotely the same
> is if you start getting cable signals through your braces.
>
So,if I install my own solar panels,the power company can charge me for the
sunlight,because I had to do something "active" to get electricity from the
sunlight?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

salty@dog.com

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

On 25 Jan 2008 17:14:26 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>"SteveB" <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote in
>news:4pgp65-62h.ln1@news.infowest.com:
>
>
>there's a big difference between -cable- and SATELLITE.
>One requires you string a cable to your home to get the signal,the other
>doesn't,the signal is there no matter what you do,whether you want it or
>not.
>
>Satellite TV is no different than the power company charging for sunlight
>when you put in your own solar panels.

Um... The satellite provider has to pay for much of the programming
they provide, and also has to maintain the system. Those satellites
don't come cheap.

If you have a job, I'm sure you expect to get paid for your work,
don't you? If you employer decided that he didn't feel like paying
you, would you have a problem with that? His argument for not paying
you is that it's okay because you were there working anyway, so it's
not like he's stealing from you or anything...

Jim Yanik

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kurtullman-
BFB660.12225325012008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:

> In article <Xns9A307BCE2654Bjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.83>,
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
> The biggest being one is what you want to get for free and other is
> something someone else wants to get for free.
>

cable TV doesn't come into my house unless someone connects a cable,and
supplies a decoder box.It's not OTA.
SATELLITE signals come to my house regardless whether I want them or not.

a comparable analogy would be if the local TV station rents an antenna (and
the digital converter)to watch their over-the-air(OTA) broadcast.
Or I supply my own and watch it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

salty@dog.com

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:53:20 -0800, "SteveB"
<deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:

>
>"Terry" <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:589001c1-5054-499c-9f9e-d49f77bfec5c@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 24, 10:18 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>If you steal your neighbors car he no longer has it.
>
>If you tune in cable channels no one has lost anything tangible.
>
>Cable companies call it stealing, but it is not the same thing.
>
>So, is that the same as going to a library, checking out a book, copying it,
>and returning the book. I mean, they have the book back, don't they?
>
>Steve
>

If you get on a train without a ticket, I guess there is no crime
because the train was going to your destination anyway, even if you
were not on it?

Bwahahahahaha!

Sanity

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

<salty@dog.com> wrote in message
news:ba8kp39dkck5bgrjafrsdslqqpr56nm2ph@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:53:20 -0800, "SteveB"
> <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you get on a train without a ticket, I guess there is no crime
> because the train was going to your destination anyway, even if you
> were not on it?
>
> Bwahahahahaha!
>
>

No use arguing with him. You can put lipstick on a whore but she's still a
whore. He has no ethics or morals and couldn't care less that a company is
providing a service for a fee and he's taking it without paying them and
justifying it in his mind that his actions are correct. I wonder if he has
any children and if he is teaching them the same.

Floyd L. Davidson

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

Dan Espen <daneNO@MORE.mk.SPAMtelcordia.com> wrote:
>Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> writes:
>
>
>Welcome to alt.home.repair where we offer home repair advice and
>try to guide the ethically challenged to a better way of life.
>
>If the corporation that made the sun sent you a bill,
>I guess you wouldn't pay it?

Until they send you to the collections department,
supposed run by some buy called Saint Peter. I've heard
he can really be spiteful about past aggressions...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

SteveB

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

<salty@dog.com> wrote in message
news:gh7kp3pi62hedckk41b1vh70b3ckpgn0nf@4ax.com...
> On 25 Jan 2008 17:14:26 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
> Um... The satellite provider has to pay for much of the programming
> they provide, and also has to maintain the system. Those satellites
> don't come cheap.
>
> If you have a job, I'm sure you expect to get paid for your work,
> don't you? If you employer decided that he didn't feel like paying
> you, would you have a problem with that? His argument for not paying
> you is that it's okay because you were there working anyway, so it's
> not like he's stealing from you or anything...
>
>

Nice comparison. I like that.

Steve

SteveB

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-BA75BA.12021125012008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
> In article <4pgp65-62h.ln1@news.infowest.com>,
> "SteveB" <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:
> ]
> But the author loses out on royalty if you bought the book. Since you
> took the time and effort to copy the book, you must want to keep a copy
> and that is theft (okay technically copyright violation..)

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

I DO have a problem, though, when I buy software, have multiple computers,
and want to put it on all of them. FOR PRIVATE USE. How many people have
more than one computer? Lots. Or one of them dies or I get rid of it, and
want to use that program again. I'm not talking about big programs, but the
little stuff. Especially when it's a ****5 program, and they're now up to
****11 version. Sounds like a can opener you buy, and you have to pay every
time you want to use it after the first time. Or, whoops, you take it
camping. Gotta pay to use it in a new location.

Steve

SteveB

2008-01-25, 1:25 pm

HeyBub

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

SteveB wrote:

> I DO have a problem, though, when I buy software, have multiple
> computers, and want to put it on all of them. FOR PRIVATE USE. How
> many people have more than one computer? Lots. Or one of them dies
> or I get rid of it, and want to use that program again. I'm not
> talking about big programs, but the little stuff. Especially when
> it's a ****5 program, and they're now up to ****11 version. Sounds
> like a can opener you buy, and you have to pay every time you want to
> use it after the first time. Or, whoops, you take it camping. Gotta
> pay to use it in a new location.

Different situation: You didn't BUY the software. You paid for the right to
use the software under the conditions specified in the contract and
sometimes those conditions specify you can't use the software on more than
one computer. If you want to use the software under different terms, the
company will probably be glad to accomodate you.

For example, enterprise editions of XP start at about $5,000.

HeyBub

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

Sam E wrote:
>
> IT IS NOT AT ALL THE SAME!! That use of electricity has a significant
> effect on the provider (increasing the load on their equipment).
> That's not at all comparable to reception of satellite signals, having
> only a negligible effect on the source.
>
> Try thinking before you repeat that garbage.
>

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

hallerb@aol.com

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

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

no authorized viewer, no $$ income.

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

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

geez isa it worth it?

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

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

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On 25 Jan 2008 17:10:14 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>Sam E <no.email@all.invalid> wrote in
>news:9b3kp31hf7gc9abo2ureb0t24ger7pern6@4ax.com:
>
>
>there's a big difference between CABLE TV and SATELLITE TV.

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

If it possible you're referring to the 2-way interaction in digital
cable (while not accepting the existence of analog cable)?
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On 25 Jan 2008 17:42:47 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kurtullman-
>BFB660.12225325012008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:
>
>
>cable TV doesn't come into my house unless someone connects a cable,and
>supplies a decoder box.It's not OTA.
>SATELLITE signals come to my house regardless whether I want them or not.
>
>a comparable analogy would be if the local TV station rents an antenna (and
>the digital converter)to watch their over-the-air(OTA) broadcast.
>Or I supply my own and watch it.

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

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

BTW, in that last paragraph, I am NOT referring to anything
interactive.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:02:38 -0800, "SteveB"
<deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:

>
>
>I wholeheartedly agree. It isn't stealing. It's just plain vanilla
>dishonest. Dishonest people can be dishonest and yet not steal. They just
>do a variety of other activities.
>

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

>A man and woman are not married to each other. They check into a motel.
>The clerk asks, "Are you married", and they both answer yes at the same
>time. Are they being honest?
>
>No. If they were honest, they wouldn't be there in the first place.
>

Just WHERE is that dishonesty?

>Beware of a man who says he's honest. He's likely to lie about other
>things.
>

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

>Twain or Rogers
>
>Steve
>
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:02:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <4pgp65-62h.ln1@news.infowest.com>,
> "SteveB" <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:
>]
> But the author loses out on royalty if you bought the book.

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

>Since you
>took the time and effort to copy the book, you must want to keep a copy
>and that is theft (okay technically copyright violation..)

And not at all "theft".

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

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:32:46 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>SteveB wrote:
>
>
>
>Different situation: You didn't BUY the software. You paid for the right to
>use the software under the conditions specified in the contract and
>sometimes those conditions specify you can't use the software on more than
>one computer.

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

> If you want to use the software under different terms, the
>company will probably be glad to accomodate you.
>
>For example, enterprise editions of XP start at about $5,000.
>
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

[snip]

>
>Nice comparison. I like that.
>
>Steve
>

Here's another one to think about.

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

2. The hospital pays you

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

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

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

An additional receiver does how affect those expenses.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Harry

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:51:43 -0500, salty@dog.com wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:53:20 -0800, "SteveB"
><deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:
>
>
>If you get on a train without a ticket, I guess there is no crime
>because the train was going to your destination anyway, even if you
>were not on it?
>

What's the cost of diesel fuel?

>Bwahahahahaha!
>

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

In article <81jkp3tiach4rpb7a8l60gqtmk62gd17uo@4ax.com>,
Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:02:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> "Losing" implies a CHANGE. Someone has something, and then does not.
> Like I said before, what the **** is that publisher doing with YOUR
> money when you haven't bought anything?
But you bought something. You bought the book. You just copied it. You
just stole the author's royalty, among other things. If you went to
library, read the book and returned it, then it wouldn't anything. But
you did something active which changed it from legal to illegal.

>
>
> And not at all "theft".
>
> Now, if you bought the book, copied it, then returned it for a
> refund...

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

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <Xns9A307B9D16F6Ajyanikkuanet@64.209.0.83>,
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course it is. Sunlight is passive.

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

> You can enjoy it by merely going
>outside or even looking outside. But in order to get cable signals, you
>have to do something active. You have to get special equipment, you have
>to find away around the security systems (which alone should tell you
>something).

But not that. "Security" can be excessive.

> About the only way the two are remotely the same is if you
>start getting cable signals through your braces.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Sam E

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <Xns9A307B9D16F6Ajyanikkuanet@64.209.0.83>,
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course it is. Sunlight is passive.

As passive as satellite.

>You can enjoy it by merely going
>outside or even looking outside. But in order to get cable signals, you
>have to do something active. You have to get special equipment, you have
>to find away around the security systems (which alone should tell you
>something). About the only way the two are remotely the same is if you
>start getting cable signals through your braces.

Sam E

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:51:01 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Sam E <no.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>
>The fact is that the courts will put you pronounce you
>"Guilty".

The "big bully" attitude.

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

Gary H

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

[snip]

>
>It isn't "corporate bullshit", it's the law.
>

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

>
>Yeah, that is true. If they decide you're acting on

>your silly ideas,

Translation: The ideas THEY call silly.

> they put you in jail to let you
>contemplate reality. That's after they laugh at the
>above description when it is cited as a defense.
>

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

>
>That's okay. Your's doesn't appear to have that
>possibility.

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

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

In article <mijkp3dqpjs6gbtv6kphreoqtj7jnk16k3@4ax.com>,
Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:

>
>
> Here's another one to think about.
>
> 1. You have a job cleaning drinking fountains in a hospital
>
> 2. The hospital pays you
>
> 3. A visitor comes in, gets a drink of water, and fails to get a
> deadly infectious disease because you cleaned that drinking fountain.
>
> 4. You (not the hospital) sue the visitor for "theft of service" since
> HE benefited from your service, but didn't pay you.
God that is a reach. He was paid for his service, cleaning up the
fountain, by the hospital.

>
> As to satellite companies, that company has expenses to provide the
> signals.
>
> An additional receiver does how affect those expenses.
By not paying for them.

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

In article <s5kkp395kk1537336edtjut4k5vt55uo62@4ax.com>,
Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe you noticed that receiving from satellite is the same, so
> quietly switched to cable.
But it isn't. You have to get the receiver, you have to find some way
around the encryption, there are all sorts of steps that make it
anything but passive.

>
>
> But not that. "Security" can be excessive.
Seems like anything that gets in the way of you getting something
for free that others pay for meets your definition of "excessive".
[color=darkred]
>

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

In article <iekkp31q4d5vbee20b0dsg015m4pb9onap@4ax.com>,
Sam E <no.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> As passive as satellite.
>
You can receive the signals passively, I guess I am probably doing
that now. But to actually view them or get some use out of the signals,
you have to be anything but passive.

Kurt Ullman

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

In article <vjkkp396at5v6i9t5hdocu3g2r52fii4u3@4ax.com>,
Gary H <garyh@nomail.invalid> wrote:

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

Nah, it would come in second to the all-purpose, I want to justify
something to myself statement above.

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

Okay the Corp BS Law just went to third place.

HeyBub

2008-01-25, 5:25 pm

Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
> 1. "buy" the software
> 2. Use it on ONE computer
> 3. that computer dies (or you just need to reinstall)
> 4. now you get to use it on NO computers, and are a victim of
> "protection"
>
Most user agreements specify use on a single computer at a time. If your
computer's stolen, you can install the software on another. Virtually all
retail versions of software can be moved to another computer. However....

If the software is designated OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer), it is
licensed only for the original computer. If that original computer is
stolen, you're out of luck.

nick hull

2008-01-25, 8:25 pm

[color=darkred]

Beware a man who says he is doing god's work, he's probably lying.
Like someone who says "I'm from the govt and am here to help you" ;)

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

KLS

2008-01-25, 8:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:15:31 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Terry wrote:
>
>So, if you rape someone, and she still has it...

You *ARE* a rapist, aren't you?

Jim Yanik

2008-01-25, 8:25 pm

"SteveB" <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote in
news:ronp65-v531.ln1@news.infowest.com:

>
><salty@dog.com> wrote in message
> news:gh7kp3pi62hedckk41b1vh70b3ckpgn0nf@4ax.com...
>
> Nice comparison. I like that.
>
> Steve
>
>
>

it's not even a "comparison".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

KLS

2008-01-25, 8:25 pm

On 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>So,if I install my own solar panels,the power company can charge me for the
>sunlight,because I had to do something "active" to get electricity from the
>sunlight?

Talk to God about that one since he's sending out the rays. He's
*NOT* by any stretch of the imagination or dictionary definition
sending out the satellite signals you are stealing.

KLS

2008-01-25, 8:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:08:29 -0800 (PST), "hallerb@aol.com"
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>no authorized viewer, no $$ income.
>
>widespread theft decreases the value of satellite tv, and besides its
>not reliable, anti theft measures are being implemented constantly
>knocking out your free service, which really isnt free, you likely
>paid someone for advice as to how to watch err steal service......
>
>sit down to watch your favorite show just to find its out from latest
>countermeasure...........
>
>geez isa it worth it?
>
>let alone your name in the paper for theft???
>
>it costs tons to uplink, satellite, and support satellite tv, isnt the
>company deserving of some profit?

A voice of reason!!!!

Smitty Two

2008-01-25, 8:25 pm

In article <ua1lp3hgufi3tu5q8jj598i2qt01eakbpn@4ax.com>,
KLS <xymergy@suds.com> wrote:

> On 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
> Talk to God about that one since he's sending out the rays. He's
> *NOT* by any stretch of the imagination or dictionary definition
> sending out the satellite signals you are stealing.

Either god is everything, or he is nothing. If he created the sun, then
he created the satellite signals, too. If you steal either one, you're
going to hell forever.

Actually, for an amusing treatment of the ludicrous lack of foundation
for christianity or any other nonsense religion, watch the first 1/3 or
so of the movie Zeitgeist. (DAGS) If you can come away from that and
still believe in jesus, you're in serious denial.

SteveB

2008-01-26, 3:25 am

"Mark Lloyd" <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote in message
news:mijkp3dqpjs6gbtv6kphreoqtj7jnk16k3@4ax.com...
> [snip]
>
>
> Here's another one to think about.
>
> 1. You have a job cleaning drinking fountains in a hospital
>
> 2. The hospital pays you
>
> 3. A visitor comes in, gets a drink of water, and fails to get a
> deadly infectious disease because you cleaned that drinking fountain.
>
> 4. You (not the hospital) sue the visitor for "theft of service" since
> HE benefited from your service, but didn't pay you.
>
>
> As to satellite companies, that company has expenses to provide the
> signals.
>
> An additional receiver does how affect those expenses.
> --
> Mark Lloyd

"An additional receiver does how affect those expenses."

WTF does that mean?

Wait a minute. I don't even want to know. I've heard all from you that I
need to.

Good Bye.

Plonk

Steve

Bob

2008-01-26, 9:25 am

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13pjro36q7oa096@corp.supernews.com...[color=darkred]
> Terry wrote:
You are an absolute idiot or a troll (I believe both).
Crawl in your hole and go away.
Bob-tx

salty@dog.com

2008-01-26, 9:25 am

On 26 Jan 2008 00:09:44 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>"SteveB" <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote in
>news:ronp65-v531.ln1@news.infowest.com:
>
>
>it's not even a "comparison".

You liberals sure have a sense of entitlement! What a bunch of rationalizing
crooks.

hallerb@aol.com

2008-01-26, 9:25 am

if the thief is using a deactivated receiver provided by the satellite
company, even if the receiver was originally sold, its price was
subsidized, so the sat provider is losing twice

once for stolen programming and once for helping pay for the receiver
thats being used for theft....

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:13:53 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>Most user agreements specify use on a single computer at a time. If your
>computer's stolen, you can install the software on another. Virtually all
>retail versions of software can be moved to another computer. However....
>

The problem I described above is only with some software (and this is
increasingly common) that tries to ENFORCE that by requiring an
internet connection and somehow sending this information somewhere
(that is it's spyware, like Windows XP) then refusing to install if it
doesn't get the response it "wants". One reason I'm now preferring
free (especially open source) software. It's unlikely to do such
stuff.

>If the software is designated OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer), it is
>licensed only for the original computer. If that original computer is
>stolen, you're out of luck.
>
>

It may have been written to verify something in the computer's BIOS. I
was not referring to that.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:12:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <81jkp3tiach4rpb7a8l60gqtmk62gd17uo@4ax.com>,
> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
> But you bought something. You bought the book. You just copied it. You
>just stole the author's royalty, among other things. If you went to
>library, read the book and returned it, then it wouldn't anything. But
>you did something active which changed it from legal to illegal.
>

I notice you ignored much of what I said. Any reason for that?

>
>
> Still copyright violation. Still taking money away from the author

Currently nonsense, since no one has explained how the author got YOUR
money in the first place.

>since they don't get the royalty from returns. You are still ripping
>someone off and playing all sorts of word games to soothe your own
>conscious.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:40:30 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <mijkp3dqpjs6gbtv6kphreoqtj7jnk16k3@4ax.com>,
> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
> God that is a reach. He was paid for his service, cleaning up the
>fountain, by the hospital.
>

I asked you to think about something. Could you do that?

> By not paying for them.

"An additional receiver does not affect those expenses. By not paying
for them."

Is that suppised to mean something? How about responding to what was
actually said?
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:38:11 -0800, "SteveB"
<deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:

>
>"Mark Lloyd" <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote in message
>news:mijkp3dqpjs6gbtv6kphreoqtj7jnk16k3@4ax.com...
>
>"An additional receiver does how affect those expenses."
>
>WTF does that mean?
>

That sentence does look weird. Looks like a spelling checker F-up. The
real sentence is,

"An additional receiver does not affect those expenses."

>Wait a minute. I don't even want to know. I've heard all from you that I
>need to.
>
>Good Bye.
>
>Plonk
>
>Steve
>
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

real1

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:32:49 -0800, Smitty Two
<prestwhich@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <ua1lp3hgufi3tu5q8jj598i2qt01eakbpn@4ax.com>,
> KLS <xymergy@suds.com> wrote:
>
>
>Either god is everything, or he is nothing. If he created the sun, then
>he created the satellite signals, too. If you steal either one, you're
>going to hell forever.
>
>Actually, for an amusing treatment of the ludicrous lack of foundation
>for christianity or any other nonsense religion, watch the first 1/3 or
>so of the movie Zeitgeist. (DAGS) If you can come away from that and
>still believe in jesus, you're in serious denial.

These "nonsense religions" make a lot more sense when viewed as
infectious diseases. The infectious agent is adapted for survival,
which includes suppressing anything (like rational thought) which
could lead to recognition of this fact and interfere with survival (of
the virus). Virus-controlled behavior even includes the attempt to
infect their own children when they're still young enough to not be
immune yet, thus sabotaging the development of a functioning immune
system.

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:42:54 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <s5kkp395kk1537336edtjut4k5vt55uo62@4ax.com>,
> Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
>
> But it isn't. You have to get the receiver, you have to find some way
>around the encryption, there are all sorts of steps that make it
>anything but passive.
>

I could explain it to you, but could never do YOUR thinking for you.

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

Absolute nonsense.

Anyway, I wasn't doing that (getting anything I hadn't paid for), just
engaged in the "hopeless" task of trying to get people to think for
themselves a little.

"No good deed goes unpunished" :-)
[color=darkred]
>
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:36:05 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Something obviously beyond the scope of what I was talking about.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

trader4@optonline.net

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Jan 26, 10:50=A0am, Mark Lloyd <mll...@xmail.com10.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:12:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ying[color=darkred]
ey?[color=darkred]
>
>
u[color=darkred]
>
> I notice you ignored much of what I said. Any reason for that?

I don't think he ignored anything. He responded directly to your
post that implied it's legal and OK to take a book from a library and
copy it. PS, it's not. It's a violation of the copyright laws.

>
>
>
y[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
> Currently nonsense, since no one has explained how the author got YOUR
> money in the first place.

The author isn't getting your money when you copy it. Isn't that the
whole point? The bottom line, it's illegal to take a book from the
library and then copy it. You have a problem with that? It's very
obvious to most of us how it's not right and how it deprives the
author of income. If you had BOUGHT the book you now have, it would
have put money into the author's pocket. By copying it from the
library, you now have a copy for free. It doesn't get much simpler
than that.

>
>
> --
> Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
>
> "All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
> are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
> -- Tennessee XXXXXXXX- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mark Lloyd

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:08:29 -0800 (PST), "hallerb@aol.com"
<hallerb@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>no authorized viewer, no $$ income.
>

That would be confusing yourself (when you watch TV without paying for
it) and everybody. Why would you do that?

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

I think that's true. I have seen lots of ads for hacked cable boxes
at really high prices in magazines.

>sit down to watch your favorite show just to find its out from latest
>countermeasure...........
>
>geez isa it worth it?
>

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

What I was posting has nothing to do with sanctions, but with the act
)of receiving cable.satellite signals) itself. Disorganized thinking
is an increasingly common problem.

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

Yes. I never said otherwise.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee XXXXXXXX

Terry

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

On Jan 25, 8:32 pm, Smitty Two <prestwh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <ua1lp3hgufi3tu5q8jj598i2qt01eak...@4ax.com>,
>
> KLS <xyme...@suds.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Either god is everything, or he is nothing. If he created the sun, then
> he created the satellite signals, too. If you steal either one, you're
> going to hell forever.
>
> Actually, for an amusing treatment of the ludicrous lack of foundation
> for christianity or any other nonsense religion, watch the first 1/3 or
> so of the movieZeitgeist. (DAGS) If you can come away from that and
> still believe in jesus, you're in serious denial.

Is this it?
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Smitty Two

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

In article
<ff95f8a0-f6f2-4b6f-b268-b2d10222a4f0@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Terry <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 8:32 pm, Smitty Two <prestwh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is this it?
> http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

That's the one.

Dan Espen

2008-01-26, 1:25 pm

salty@dog.com writes:

> On 26 Jan 2008 00:09:44 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
> You liberals sure have a sense of entitlement! What a bunch of rationalizing
> crooks.

Am I reading this right?
Sure looks like you just labeled Jim Yanik as a liberal.
If so, that's absurd. Look around.

There sure are a lot of ethically challenged people in this
group. Did you know that judging people as a group is the
definition of prejudice?

salty@dog.com

2008-01-26, 1:26 pm

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:40:06 GMT, Dan Espen <daneNO@MORE.mk.SPAMtelcordia.com>
wrote:

>salty@dog.com writes:
>
>
>Am I reading this right?
>Sure looks like you just labeled Jim Yanik as a liberal.
>If so, that's absurd. Look around.
>
>There sure are a lot of ethically challenged people in this
>group. Did you know that judging people as a group is the
>definition of prejudice?

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what Jim Yanik has been posting for a
very long time here. I have listened to "Yanik the panic" for years as he talked
about entitlements, and people who don't want to pay their own way. He
attributes those things to liberals. I just applied his own views to him.
Clearly he's a liberal. He has told us how to identify liberals, and that's what
I did. He's obviously way to the left of Hillary Clinton.

Dan Espen

2008-01-26, 5:25 pm

salty@dog.com writes:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:40:06 GMT, Dan Espen <daneNO@MORE.mk.SPAMtelcordia.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what Jim Yanik has been posting for a
> very long time here. I have listened to "Yanik the panic" for years as he talked
> about entitlements, and people who don't want to pay their own way. He
> attributes those things to liberals. I just applied his own views to him.
> Clearly he's a liberal. He has told us how to identify liberals, and that's what
> I did. He's obviously way to the left of Hillary Clinton.

Jim can speak for himself, but Google gave me a different picture.

It's still prejudice.

jJim McLaughlin

2008-01-26, 5:25 pm

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <4pgp65-62h.ln1@news.infowest.com>,
> "SteveB" <deserttraveler@mochajava.com> wrote:
> ]
>
>
> But the author loses out on royalty if you bought the book. Since you
> took the time and effort to copy the book, you must want to keep a copy
> and that is theft (okay technically copyright violation..)

No technically about it.

It is theft of intellectal property.

Jim Yanik

2008-01-26, 5:25 pm

Dan Espen <daneNO@MORE.mk.SPAMtelcordia.com> wrote in
news:icy7acz7j8.fsf@mk.telcordia.com:

> salty@dog.com writes:
>
>
> Jim can speak for himself, but Google gave me a different picture.
>
> It's still prejudice.
>

well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Today's "liberal" is a statist.
Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.

I don't believe I fit that definition.

But,I don't care WHAT he labels me.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Floyd L. Davidson

2008-01-26, 5:25 pm

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>well,I guess it depends on the meaning of "liberal".
>In today's world,it means "socialist" ,"progressive",or Communist.

Two out of three wrong.

>Today's "liberal" is a statist.

Absurdly *backwards*.

>Everything belongs to or is subject to the State.

Excessive confusion seems to be the root cause of
a lot of what you say, and this is not exception.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Oren

2008-01-26, 5:25 pm

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:20:07 -0800, jJim McLaughlin
<jimm.claughlin@comcast.com> wrote:

>It is theft of intellectal property.

Isn't that what the writer's strike is about? Their intellectual
writings being distributed by holly wood...no compensation.

Same with movies/software - not being paid for.

China is the worst for theft ...no regards for ownership, imo.

Oren
--

Dan Espen

2008-01-26, 5:25 pm

floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
> Two out of three wrong.
>
>
> Absurdly *backwards*.

Yes, it seems so:

statism:

state intervention in personal, social or economic matters

At least our current crop of conservatives seem to fit
this description quite well.

>
> Excessive confusion seems to be the root cause of
> a lot of what you say, and this is not exception.

Liberal:

# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness;
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress
and reform and the protection of civil liberties

Hmm, sounds OK to me. I guess I'm a liberal.
But, I like to think I'm pretty ethical.
So I resent being pre-judged as somehow ethically
lacking.

salty@dog.com

2008-01-26, 5:25 pm

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:36:17 GMT, Dan Espen <daneNO@MORE.mk.SPAMtelcordia.com>
wrote:

>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
>
>
>Yes, it seems so:
>
>statism:
>
>state intervention in personal, social or economic matters
>
>At least our current crop of conservatives seem to fit
>this description quite well.
>
>
>Liberal:
>
># broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness;
># having political or social views favoring reform and progress
># tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
># a person who favors a political philosophy of progress
> and reform and the protection of civil liberties
>
>Hmm, sounds OK to me. I guess I'm a liberal.
>But, I like to think I'm pretty ethical.
>So I resent being pre-judged as somehow ethically
>lacking.

Then your quibble is with Yanik, not me.

Oren

2008-01-26, 5:25 pm

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:40:06 GMT, Dan Espen
<daneNO@MORE.mk.SPAMtelcordia.com> wrote:

> Did you know that judging people as a group is the
>definition of prejudice?

Bill Cosby<sp> (Popcicle guy?) did a film on prejudice.

His end words where that he was not prejudice, just a bigot :-))

He DON'T like anybody!

Oren
--

Larry Bud

2008-01-26, 8:25 pm

On Jan 24, 11:49=C2=A0pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 10:18=C2=A0pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
s like[color=darkred]
>
..[color=darkred]
>
rn it[color=darkred]
>
d in[color=darkred]
cess until the[color=darkred]
her[color=darkred]
=BDI was once[color=darkred]
ter[color=darkred]
>
>
>
g...[color=darkred]
Network and[color=darkred]
work dish[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
He wonders out[color=darkred]
ed[color=darkred]
>
s dish? Would[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
>
>
> If you steal your neighbors car he no longer has it.
>
> If you tune in cable channels no one has lost anything tangible.
>
> Cable companies call it stealing, but it is not the same thing.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand, or care , what
intellectual property is.

So let's say EVERYONE "tunes in" cable channels or satellite without
paying for it. The company gets zero dollars, goes out of business,
because it actually costs money to stay IN business. See, it costs
money to pay cable installers, run coax, buy distribution boxes, pay
for the channels that they are supplying to customers, pay for health
care for their employees, etc.

So now the company has no money. But hey, nobody did anything wrong,
right? Now, clearly, the company was damaged by the activity of all
of those people.

Larry Bud

2008-01-26, 8:25 pm

> there's a big difference between -cable- and SATELLITE.
> One requires you string a cable to your home to get the signal,the other
> doesn't,the signal is there no matter what you do,whether you want it or
> not.
>
> Satellite TV is no different than the power company charging for sunlight
> when you put in your own solar panels.

Ridiculous. It costs money to broadcast signals through a
satellite. It costs the sat company money to buy the rights to
channels they are providing.

Larry Bud

2008-01-26, 8:25 pm

> As I said previously,they ALREADY are putting their satellite signal into
> my home;It's paid for regardless whether I rent one of their decoder boxes.
> My providing my own decoder does not increase their costs in any way.

Since when is their cost the determining factor of whether or not
their property is being stolen? It's theft because there is
damage. I know there is damage because if everyone stole their
signal, they would go out of business.

> It's no different than charging me for sunlight.

Obviously, the difference is that the sat company doesn't own the
sun. But at least even you recognized above that it's THEIR