So what can we or cant talk about.

[boston area dtv]

So I read a thread a couple months ago where installers advocated snipping wires and causing all sorts of damage to a condominium complex

http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=74272&highlight=condo+install

And now I read about "moving"

Yet when someone talks about stealing FTA its like killed a bus full of nuns.

Is there something about talking about hacking or stealing FTA signals that gets the site fined or in trouble more than talking about "moving"

I have D* and really dont care about Hack talk or stealing FTA signals I am just wondering, why the double standard?

 

[damaged]

So I read a thread a couple months ago where installers advocated snipping wires and causing all sorts of damage to a condominium complex

http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=74272&highlight=condo+install

And now I read about "moving"

Yet when someone talks about stealing FTA its like killed a bus full of nuns.

Is there something about talking about hacking or stealing FTA signals that gets the site fined or in trouble more than talking about "moving"

I have D* and really dont care about Hack talk or stealing FTA signals I am just wondering, why the double standard?

You forgot the posts asking about violating the DMCA, i.e. "How can I copy my shows from my DVR to a DVD through a digital connection?".

 

[NightRyder]

Someone that "moves" still pays for their service.

Someone that wants to copy content off their HD for personal use has already paid for access to it and were allowed to record it. Simply changing how/where it is stored should not be that big a deal as long as they don't intend to sell or make it available to the general public. Despite the media giants attempts at circumvention, DMCA needs to allow for "Fair Use" rights.

Hacking is theft pure and simple, no different than going into a store and walking out with merchandise you didn't pay for.

NightRyder

 

[damaged]

Someone that wants to copy content off their HD for personal use has already paid for access to it and were allowed to record it. Simply changing how/where it is stored should not be that big a deal as long as they don't intend to sell or make it available to the general public.

First, let me say, I in no way support the DMCA, DRM or any of that, at least not the way they want to implement it, that being said.

This is not simply about changing where the bits are being stored, be it DVR or DVD, it is the method required to transfer it and keep it in its original digital form, to a digital media, doing this requires circumvention of technologies that is prohibited by the DMCA.

The DMCA is saying that you cannot make a perfect bit by bit digital-to-digital copy unless proper rights managment has been obeyed, doing otherwise requires DMCA-violating circumvention, since D* DVRs do not provide a way to copy digital-to-digital to digital media, making the device so it can is circumvention, you did not buy the DVD(media), you bought the right to watch a signal, so you did not buy anything that you could 'copy' (no physical DVD disc).

Despite the media giants attempts at circumvention, DMCA needs to allow for "Fair Use" rights.

If fair use was the issue, I'd agree, but, this is not about fair use, it is about the method used in creating these copies.

Hacking is theft pure and simple, no different than going into a store and walking out with merchandise you didn't pay for.

NightRyder

Agreed, consider this, if you buy a (for example) PPV and DVR it, D* did not sell you that PPV with the intention of having perpetual rights to view it off a DVD on your PC, it was meant to be watched at that time, now, if you have a D* DVR they allow you to record it for use on their DVR, again, not to be made into high quality DVDs that people (pirates) _WILL_ dupe and sell, so by your last statement, this is stealing, no different than signal theft.

 

[TheForce]

There is no simple answer to this, otherwise we would not have all the disagreement by those who are supposed to know, much less those of us here who can only speculate and offer what we would prefer to have in place.

Having said that, I will say that as a content producer, a copyrighter in my own profession, I disagree that a content producer MUST be required to protect your fair use rights. All that provision of the US copyright law says is that there are certain special circumstances where you may use copyrighted content for your use under special cases. I don't think there is any argument with that. And, there is no need to dig deeper into waht the Fair Use provisions state in this thread, I hope. Because any of you can find the actual wording of it freely available anywhere on the net.

The use of the term "Hacking" as being synonomous with stealing, IMO, is just a display of ignorance of the definition of that word. While it may be used to state some content was stolen, hacking something is not always used in that respect. One must consider the context of the word in use. With the above paragraph of Fair Use, consider one who bypasses the analog copy protections put in place by the copyright holders to prevent content theft. But I may know a way around that analog protection. If I hack past it, make a copy, and use that copy in a fair use way, I have hacked but not stolen under the law.

Now enter the DMCA- This act adds ADDITIONAL copyright protections for the copyright holder that further states it is illegal to copy, or modify any DIGITAL content, even if the end use is protected under "Fair USE"

Enter the conflict and the debates under the law.- Unfortunately, those who belive their fair use rights extend to ALL content, with no specificity as to analog or digital or hard copy, under fair use provision of the basic copyright act, believe they are protected. They believe the basic copyright act may not be further restricted under the law, and have cried for actual rewriting of the DMCA. Others believe that the DMCA does further restrict the basic copyright act adding additional protection that makes fair use copying next to impossible the way the law is written. There is no point in arguing here which is right because the conflicts are well defined, not the areas of protection.

Unfortunately, the decisions to date have been on the side of the DMCA as further restriction to fair use when examining case decisions in the courts.


Personally, I don't believe the DMCA should further restrict based on the canvas of the content. ( analog or digital) If our world never had digital it would be like making a law to further protect content if watercolor as opposed to oil paintings. But the people writing the laws have written this act and we, the voting public allow them , re-elect them anyway. It is our own fault we have such conflicting statutes.

To understand completely what I have posted, I have assumed everyone is familiar with the fundamentals of Fair Use. That how the content is used, the commercial result of the copies, and finally, the redistribution of those copies, all weigh into whether you have stolen the content or not under fair use. DMCA, today, further restricts the Fair use in that no copies may be made if the content was digital, period, end of case! Lawyers, have and will continue to argue the conflicts in these two laws until something is done to either redefine fair use or kill the DMCA.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Personally and my simple answer is a person should be able to watch whatever they want to PAY for.

If I am allowed to buy the LA Times here in Connecticut then why can't I watch the LA news from here in Connecticut especially if I want to pay for it. Hell I would even be willing to pay a premium to be able to watch what I want.

 

[SatinKzo]

Yet when someone talks about stealing FTA its like killed a bus full of nuns.

Is there something about talking about hacking or stealing FTA signals that gets the site fined or in trouble more than talking about "moving"

I have D* and really dont care about Hack talk or stealing FTA signals I am just wondering, why the double standard?

How do you steal Free To Air? I get it for FREE! No stealing involved. Using FTA receivers to get a subscription service programming for free is illegal and is a totally different then receiving FTA signals.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Personally and my simple answer is a person should be able to watch whatever they want to PAY for.

If I am allowed to buy the LA Times here in Connecticut then why can't I watch the LA news from here in Connecticut especially if I want to pay for it. Hell I would even be willing to pay a premium to be able to watch what I want.

Well said. And I subscribe to the NYTimes in Colorado; why can't I watch television from NY?

I think that because "moving" involves paying for a service, its not the same as hacking in any way. And the argument that you hurt local retailers because you are not watching their ads is b.s.; I don't watch the pathetic locals here, but I do all of my buying here (except for what I get online - which I usually buy online because I can't get it here).

 

[TheForce]

"Well said. And I subscribe to the NYTimes in Colorado; why can't I watch television from NY? "

While I agree we all should have the freedom to watch whatever station we want wherever we want, especially if we pay for that service, like the newspapers, the networks agree to offer exclusivity in a market to a single station. There are many products offered by companies that have exclusive dealerships for a territory so this sort of rule is not uncommon. I recall when buying my Dwin Projector, there was this fight among the local dealers (3) who all said they claimed me as their territory. Granted this was not well regulated like an FCC ruling to support the exclusive territory and conmflicts arose, but the practice, of exclusivity is not strange.

I would hope that some day, everyone who wishes to watch a station anywhere can have that option if they are willing to pay the price. Otherwise, the RF local broadcast will be the big losers as they are replaced with IPTV broadcasts by the viewers.

 

[charper1]

the networks agree to offer exclusivity in a market to a single station. There are many products offered by companies that have exclusive dealerships for a territory so this sort of rule is not uncommon.

AKA a protected monopoly of sorts?

 

[mastermesh]

Honestly, the locals thing you all are talking about all comes down to advertising... Local companies want to locally advertise so they want their shows only seen locally. Also, networks don't want someone in California watching the Primetime TV a couple of hours early because they can see local networks in NYC.

I think the real way to deal with the issue is forget the ads all together and just have the networks on satellite give us totally commercial free programming... Problem with that is then folks like the guys running HBO think they should charge more to the subscriber since they are loosing ad money. I say if you pay to watch tv you really aren't wanting to pay to watch advertising, but a lot of folks running tv networks think otherwise...

We let them do that, and so they keep going after the money.

 

[TheForce]

AKA a protected monopoly of sorts?

Of sorts, yes, but only for a branded product or service that I have seen. Generally, exclusive agreements for a branded product or service is not considered a monopoly.

 

[Mr Tony]

How do you steal Free To Air? I get it for FREE! No stealing involved. Using FTA receivers to get a subscription service programming for free is illegal and is a totally different then receiving FTA signals.

so true

 

[Mr Tony]

Honestly, the locals thing you all are talking about all comes down to advertising... Local companies want to locally advertise so they want their shows only seen locally. Also, networks don't want someone in California watching the Primetime TV a couple of hours early because they can see local networks in NYC.

I think the real way to deal with the issue is forget the ads all together and just have the networks on satellite give us totally commercial free programming...

why cant they do what Canada does. Canadian OTA networks (CBC, CTV, Global, CH, City, A-Channel) have generic commercials in primetime for nationwide companies (Subway, Canadian Tire, The Source, Future Shop, etc) and also promos for shows on their network. The other times they do have some "localized" commercials

There are some affiliates of CBC & CTV but anybody can view them. So someone in Prince George, BC wants to see a show 3 hours ahead on Toronto CBC (Prince george has their own CBC) they can. Don't want to see the crappy commercials for Jimmy's auto body and instead rather watch it on CBC Vancouver? Sure no problems. Heck the cable companies there offer a "time shifting" package that gives you other networks in another time zone.

I use to have all nets but CBS from Denver until I moved. Loved seeing the different newscasts. Would like to see CBS LA to see how a newscaster who worked in Mpls for 20+ years (Paul Magers) is doing

 

[charper1]

A-freaking-men Berg! I have been saying this forever. Its all about greed and fear for local only interests IMHO (protecting monopolies). If I live in Phoenix and I am watching NYC TV, why worry about me not seeing those PHX ads; I am still gonna shop locally ; its not likely I am going to drive or fly to NYC to shop. I am always going to shop in my own neighborhood. With the proliferation of online shopping, the last thing local advertisers need to worry about is me seeing ads from another city via TV. All local affiliates care about is local ad dollars lining their pockets. Just put all direct network feeds up, with delays per each time zone, and allow us end users to decide who, who, where, and how, for a fee. Local needs can be served by radio, papers, and a self-sufficient, self funded, local TV outlet; all they really need is news & weather programming.

 

[Mr Tony]

charper

In some DMA's its really retarded with the "protection". Example is the Mpls DMA. The DMA extends from the Iowa border damn near to Canada. So someone in Brainerd (140 miles from Mpls), Bemidji (200 miles) Aitkin (130), Alexandria (150) etc don't give a rats patoot about Denny Hecker car dealerships in Minneapolis. They'll go locally. If I see a Wal-Mart ad on my "local" station (WCCO as an example) or on my "moved" local (KDLH Duluth) or if I had them CBS from NY or LA...does it really matter where my eyes are? If I want to go to Wal-Mart, I'll go.

If we want to point the finger, Dish and Direct are screwing some advertisers in MN. There are 3 CBS stations in the Mpls DMA
WCCO (Mpls), KCCO (Alexandria) and KCCW (Walker). KCCO and KCCW are both satellite stations but they show different commercials. On cable, you get the "local" station (whatever is closer to you) but on Dish & Direct you get WCCO. So "Jimmy's Chevrolet" in say Bemidji is losing business because sat subscribers see WCCO and not his ad on KCCW.

If you live in a O&O area, you should be able to see the E or W feed of said station just like in Canada

 

[zazu]

ok, i need to chime in- first on the DIGITAL CONTENT,, and my POINT will be getting to that we can TALK about SOME legal Devices which basically do what we CANT talk ablout with this content--- this arguement goes all the way back to Cassette technology( no one bothered trying to make thier own 8tracks!!! he he he)yes the music companies lose some cash, but geesh they make enough too,,, and now with modern digital technology its even easier to copy( especially without losing any quality)lets start with DVD recorders( skipping over the BETA/VHS era) how is it different to record using one of them as oppossed to using a DVR/PVR then transferring off??look,, if they dont want us to have any back ability to this content DONT SELL these DEVICES,, make any means to back up content Illegal, if we are only supposed to buy Distributor released content, and View broadcasts from main source and only once at airing time!!!i am going to leave alone the watching "locals" from different regions( especially due to the advertising issues) .. with true FTA that are locals in different time zones, and i know that Mpeg2 DVB FTA is not a main means for broadcast( except for a few) here in the USA , this whole UHF/VHF shutoff gives me a headache, and the OTA HD (atsc),, i wish these companies would look at bouncing off sats.. {and in conus, again adversitising issues}..
.i can chew for hours on these subjects,,back to the fact that we Can Record using a STB DVD recorder,,whats the diff whether i use FTA to watch lets say a east coast CBS affiliate and record, than if my neighbor uses his Echo* paid sub with his PVR/DVR to watch and record same , but then he tranfers the content off??end result same and we Can Talk about how i did it???which for the all the reasons we cant you are spewing rules/laws.. just all seems odd of what IS and what IS NOT legal ..
now second, i am going to only lightly touch on that "hacker talk" and stealing services..for some of the same reasons as not talking about content transfer RULES/LAWS, no hack talk .. which for this site,i agree with for these reasons,,,look there are places people can go to talk about that,, and thats where a member from here should go if thats something they want to READ about.but that gets in the way of what this site is about,,legit businesses'/sponsors would not come here and hope the true FTAer( which those hack sites get sponsers that sell illegal devices to circumvent the ways of pretection)[[EDIT- i had to come back and throw this little fact in, i find it totally funny when there is a business/sponsor thats sells only leagl satellite equipment, yet will give money to both FTA forum sites and Hack FTA forum sites , yes many legal thins in this world can be used for non intended illegal use, but to advocate it by advertising at those sites , I CAN START A WHOLE THREAD ON WHY MEMBERS OF A NO HACK SITE SHOULD ONLY SUPPORT THIER SPONSORS THAT DO NOT ADVERTISE AT HACK SITES , i mean we cant talk about places to buy if they dont advertise here)another thig this thread should touch because its a no no topic]]FTA is sold with legal intentions , i as i said ealrier i hope that more broadcasters would use it,
This site is also about the tweaking of the Paid Package Plans,, if this site let Hack Speak go on, the main companies would not share info and help the members here ..thats what this site IS about, and if someone wants to throw out the freedom of speech token,, its not like they cant not go to those sites ----there is your FREEDOM Choice...( and yes i know how some of the reasons i threw out about FTA and no talk about hack can be arugued on both sides for content recording/transferring , CIRCUMVENTION)
man these 2 topics

 

[jayn_j]

This isn't the first time we have had this discussion, and I must state that I do disagree with the semi-official position.

The laws are there for broadcast exclusivity and DRM. We may not agree with them. We all worked to fight them when they were passed. But they are the law, and people have been prosecuted for violating them.

The arguments that we paid for the services are not relevant. The analogy is that I shouldn't be arrested for posessing crystal meth because I bought it fair and square.

I would be a lot more comfortable if we would stop the "moving" discussion, perhaps moving it off to a sister site, much like we do with Dishmod/Dishrip.

 

[Van]

Well Im not going to get into the whole dma or what ever it is because I dont care, it doesnt matter to me about being able to make more than one recording of a show and I am ok with legitimately buying a genuine copy of a movie as opposed to the boot legs you can get at places like flea markets.

With regards to the FTA thing I believe what the OP was refering to was the modding of the units to gain unpayed for access to content provided by two main stream dbs providers. What it comes down to is that Scott has made a decision to not allow this kind of talk as he wants to have the image of our site be one of honest hobbiests who want to further the knowledge they have and help others and get the latest news and tips about the services and equipment. To this end one of the two DBS leaders has been nice enough to grant Scott some early information about products and services making for a mutualy beneficial relationship.

If Scott allowed the discussion of how to mod FTA and provider gear then the image of the site would be one very much tarnished and it probably would not be here today and we would not have any news bits ahead of other sites. As it is D and E are both pushing hard on those that would host such sites and not long ago a large number of them got shut down and businesses related to them raided and people arrested.

Free speach and freedom of speach is noble but it can get you into trouble when its not handled correctly and when that freedom can and will cost not only a company but millions of people money then someone is going to want something done about it hence the catch twenty two.