Come on, how you get a coded signal is irrelevant! Decoding a proprietary signal and pirating the programming is illegal is all 50 states. Free Satellite TV: The biggest myth on the planet Your piracy is costing DirecTV money and they pass that along to their legitimate customers. You are taking money out of my pocket. Pay TV Piracy: Decrypting is costing the satellite and cable TV industry $6.5 billion a year Tell me, did you agree to something like this when you bought your equipment? LINK I, the user, understand that certain satellite television equipment sold legally may nevertheless be used in an unauthorized manner to aid in the theft of satellite television services. I, hereby declare that I understand that the law provides for substantial criminal and civil penalties for the theft of satellite television services, and that I will not use Pansatpro.com products in any way whatsoever to intercept any satellite television signal without proper authorization from the local satellite service provider and payment of all lawful charges, and I will only use the equipment in accordance with all applicable laws.
that seems like a bit of a stretch. only true if his stealing prevents him from buying direct tv. maybe for him it is either steal direct tv, or get cable.
Asked and answered already. All three can be copyrighted, obviously, in book, video, or recorded form. Reading, reciting, and singing them yourself is fair use. Stealing performances, compositions, or copyrighted lyrics is not. This is easy to understand, you are being obtuse. Asked and answered already. You are intentionally missing the point. And you are in error. It's not just ones and zeros, analog recordings are protected, too. Specific performances are a specific patern of ones and zeros and they are owned by their creators. Asked and answered already. This is absurd. Copyright protection existed for centuries before the recording industry existed. Your contention that music should be free is based on two concepts. 1. I want it and I don't want to pay for it. 2. Because its easy to steal, it should be legal Have you noticed anybody lining up with you on this one? Can't you just lose a debate quietly.
i dont mean reciting them, i mean reciting them in a place where others can hear, and then have a copy in their heads. the internet isnt he ony place where information can propagate and be pirated. and if those ones and zeros happen to be a book, then the gvernment will put them in a library to be freely copied into the brains of freeloaders everywhere. double standard. 1 is barely true, i dont really mind paying for it, i just enjoy stealing. 3 should be "it benefits the world when people get to exchange information freely." no and no, although i think maybe nolimit is slightly sympathetic to my points. dudes, i am just before my time on this one! i do not feel like corporations should have the right to tell me what information i can spread and what i cannot. i am not into keeping secrets for other people. if i have a piece of info, and a friend wants a copy, he is getting it. also, the digital millenium copyright act is nuts and will not last. maybe cd's should make me sign a non-disclosure agreement. but even then when i break the contract i havent stolen anything and the people who i gave the music to (the thieves) have done nothing wrong, because they havent signed anything. at no point in human history should it be illegal to exchange information, no matter what that information is, with exceptions for treason.
Asked and answered already. A child could understand the difference between remembering a song and stealing a recording. Asked and answered already. Reading a book is not illegal. Stealing a book is illegal and that includes copyrighted E-books. No, just born on the wrong continent. You would be the Minister of Propaganda in Communist China where copyright protection of American intellectual property is almost non-existant.
when i use an example of a copyrighted poem, the recital is equivalent to giving out free perfect copies to everyone in attendance. the only difference with stealing music is that you cant perfectly reproduce music and put copies in other people's brains. again, the only difference was a technological barrier to information exchange. this is complicated, think about it. if i am a writer, it would piss me off that people can take a copy of a book from a library, then put a copy in their brains and keep it. thats money out my pocket. if they want a copy of my book, buy it. (it wouldnt really piss me off, it would please me that my book was in demand, i am making a point) well, at least our little yellow brothers have something right.
It is astonishing simple and requires little thought. Listening to a performance could be free or you may have paid for admission and it was not free. Reading a book could be free if the library or somebody else paid for it or you may have paid for the book. In any case, listening to music or reading a book is not making an illegal copy. It's just listening. You'll never be able to recite War and Peace from memory. I bet you cannot recite The Cat in The Hat from memory. Only 157 has the photographic memory to do this. But even then he has not stolen a copy and has practiced free use. But putting it on a xerox machine and copying it is illegal and immoral and so is making a copy of a copyrighted recording.
ok, we are getting closer. now imagine i put lots of effort into writing the best haiku ever. i mean it is a zinger. that can easily be copied by regular folks, not just 157, but 98s like me and you. there is no protection, because it would be impossible. and yet we are not staying up night worriyin about the paychecks for the haiku-writing poets of the world. also i posit that a book reader is making a copy for his head, just the copy is not as good a quality as the original. the music theif of course, has a 100% perfect digital copy (the haiku theif has a perfect copy as well, they are easy to remember). i do not think the quality of the copy should be relevant. people thought radio, and vhs and everything else would kill media. it doesnt. it makes us consume even more. the more it is out there the better things are. sure, revenue models will change, but that is ok. if a writer tells you he believe public libraries are hurting his sales, what do you tell him? too bad? are you not as heartless as i am?
let me further illustrate my point about copying. good musicians can create guitar tabs of the songs they know, from memory. without ever seeing the music. the info is in their head. some people write these tabs down and put them on the web for helpin other peeps learn songs. keep in mind these tabs are stored in the brains of musicians and wrtten out, not xeroxed from the local music store. but the music industry is crackin down on these people. they are shutting down their tab sites. all these dudes are doing is teaching others things they know. the premise of the music industry is that the things they know are not things they own. the copies of the guitar tabs in their brains are not their property. also note that these guys are not selling this information, just exchanging it. it makes me wonder if the music industry will crash though my window if they find me trying to teach you how to play paradise city, because they own that information, and i am copying it from my head to your head. does the music industry own the information i am storing in my head? i say they do not. i say they do not own the information on my hard drive either. i will let them have exclusive selling rights, because they created the patterns of ones and zeros. but they cant have exclusive info exchange rights. too bad. release info into the wild, its out, you cannot unring that bell. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5305520.stm another example of music making enemies with their fans.
To put your mind at ease, it's a competitor of DirecTV. I used to be able to decrypt DirecTV signals, but I (or anybody that I've heard of) haven't been able to defeat their new security. That's my whole point I guess. Is it my fault that DISH security is weak? As for your disclaimer, I noticed it, but never agreed to it. My feeling is I legally purchased all of the equipment I have, so it's my right to use it how I see fit. If they don't want me to use it as intended, strengthen your encryption. Technically, it may be a crime if I were actually doing it, but much like your analogy of purchasing porn, I see it as a victimless crime. I highly doubt the 6.5 billion dollars the satellite companies claim they're losing. The number just seems to be too high. But, if the figures are correct, I think it would be worth it to them to re-examine their security and plug the holes. Don't you? It's not often that I agree with Martin, but I think I do with this one. If the technology is available that allows us to do this, then it's up to the industry to defeat it. If not, just live with it.
