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.

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?

On 25 Jan 2008 17:10:14 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Sam E wrote in
:

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:49:37 -0800 (PST), Terry
wrote:

On Jan 24, 10:18*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 24, 9:52?pm, "Cliff Hartle" wrote:





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

http://www.satellitesdirecttvdishnet...-satellite/pri
v...

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" wrote in
...
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?- Hide quoted text -

- 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

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.


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 Williams

On 25 Jan 2008 17:42:47 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik 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.


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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:02:38 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


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

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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:02:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"SteveB" 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.

"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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:32:46 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

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.

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 Williams

[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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:51:43 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:53:20 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Terry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 10:18 pm, " wrote:
On Jan 24, 9:52?pm, "Cliff Hartle" wrote:





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

http://www.satellitesdirecttvdishnet...satellite/priv...

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" wrote in
...
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?- Hide quoted text -

- 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

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?


What's the cost of diesel fuel?

Bwahahahahaha!

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:02:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"SteveB" 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.

"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.



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...

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.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik 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.

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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik 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.

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.

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

Sam E wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:55:10 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote in
:

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.....

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]

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".

[snip]


It isn't "corporate bull****", 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.

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

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).

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.

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

In article ,
Mark Lloyd 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.

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik 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.

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.



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


About the only way the two are remotely the same is if you
start getting cable signals through your braces.

In article ,
Sam E wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik 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.

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.

In article ,
Gary H wrote:

[snip]


It isn't "corporate bull****", 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.

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.

Mark Lloyd 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"

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.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:15:31 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Terry wrote:

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.

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

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

"SteveB" wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2008 17:14:26 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Terry" wrote in message

om. .. On Jan 24, 10:18 pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 24, 9:52?pm, "Cliff Hartle" wrote:





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

http://www.satellitesdirecttvdishnet...tv-satellite/p
riv ...

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" wrote in
...
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?- Hide quoted text -

- 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

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.

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




it's not even a "comparison".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

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/

On 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 GMT, Jim Yanik 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.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:08:29 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


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.

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!!!!

In article ,
KLS wrote:

On 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 GMT, Jim Yanik 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.

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.

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
[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

"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

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Terry wrote:

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.
You are an absolute idiot or a troll (I believe both).
Crawl in your hole and go away.
Bob-tx

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....

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:13:53 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Mark Lloyd 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"

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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:12:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:02:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"SteveB" 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.

"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.


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



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...

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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:40:30 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd 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.


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


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.

"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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:38:11 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
.. .
[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

"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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:32:49 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
KLS wrote:

On 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 GMT, Jim Yanik 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.

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.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:42:54 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Jim Yanik 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.

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.


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



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.
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" :-)



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 Williams

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:36:05 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

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.


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 Williams

On Jan 26, 10:50*am, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:12:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:





In article ,
Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:02:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"SteveB" 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.

"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.

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.






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...

* 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.

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.




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 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 Williams- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:08:29 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


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.

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 Williams

On Jan 25, 8:32 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

KLS wrote:
On 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 GMT, Jim Yanik 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.

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/

In article
,
Terry wrote:

On Jan 25, 8:32 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

KLS wrote:
On 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 GMT, Jim Yanik 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.

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/

That's the one.

writes:

On 26 Jan 2008 00:09:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in

Nice comparison. I like that.

Steve

it's not even a "comparison".

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?

writes:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:40:06 GMT, Dan Espen
wrote:

writes:

On 26 Jan 2008 00:09:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in

Nice comparison. I like that.

Steve

it's not even a "comparison".

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?

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.