Someone brings up a good point

[Van]

In this thread the OP brings up a good point about the whole process of phantom moving being lying and deception. Is it not hyprocritical in some regard to say "NO HACK TALK yet allow and even promote deceiving the provider for ones own personal use. I know that hacking is taking money away yet this isnt but still it is ethicly wrong to deceive the providers in this regards and dont you think that it would to some degrea tarnish the image of this site?

 

[Ramy]

Good point. I don't have an answer for you though.

 

[BobMurdoch]

I think the idea is to use the legit method whenever one is available. When there is NO other alternative, then I wouldn't have a moral problem going that route.

I've got New York Locals so it isn't an issue for me..... If I were in the sticks and looking at the loss of 1-4 networks becasue of it, then I wouldn't have a problem going with whatever alleviated my problem.....

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

There is a huge difference over hacing and moving.

Hacking is stealing.

Moving is Paying for programming you want to watch.

You can buy your favorite newspaper from anywhere and read it anywhere in the country.
You can listen to your favorite radio station anywhere as they broadcast it on the internet.
But you can't watch the local news from your hometown, because the NAB says thats a no no.

My feeling is if you want to pay for it you should be able to watch it. Period.

 

[VinceT3]

I'm guessing the difference between hack & moving is one you go to jail or get a fine if you get caught the other you lose your locals..

Morally wrong sure.. legally finable/jailable no.. but it's a fine line I'll give it that..

 

[BobMurdoch]

And since the people in the sticks are basically invisible to the NAB ANYWAY, I wouldn't lose any sleep over this.....

If anyone has to worry, it would be E* and D* who have deeper pockets, but I think the NAB would have a hard time proving complicity in any conspiracy when they no longer have any involvement in distants....

It's kind of like South Africa in the 80's.... OK great, you've forced everyone to divest from the place completely .... Now they have zero presence, zero accountability, and no desire to negotiate to do anything about any other issues in regards to distants....

If a customer gives them an address that exists, how are they supposed to police it? Especially now that many have cell phones as their primary phone and you can't check the prefix for their location reliably....

 

[rad]

There is a huge difference over hacing and moving.

Hacking is stealing.

Moving is Paying for programming you want to watch.

You can buy your favorite newspaper from anywhere and read it anywhere in the country.
You can listen to your favorite radio station anywhere as they broadcast it on the internet.
But you can't watch the local news from your hometown, because the NAB says thats a no no.

My feeling is if you want to pay for it you should be able to watch it. Period.

So when someone says they want to 'move' so they can watch their sports team, which isn't carried in the DMA but is available via a subscription sports package, isn't stealing???

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

How cares.

If I want to give someone access to my Slingbox and watch a Patriots game, I am in my full rights to do so.

If I am listening to music and a friend calls and he can hear my music, am I illegally broadcasting the music?


Welcome to the great Digital Devide.

 

[cdragon]

So when someone says they want to 'move' so they can watch their sports team, which isn't carried in the DMA but is available via a subscription sports package, isn't stealing???

No it's not. That local is getting paid. Why should I buy 15 games a week including the one I would already get if I didn't move, just to watch 1.

It's no more fair then the collages that make you buy women's basketball tickets if you want men's season football.

 

[rad]

How cares.

If I want to give someone access to my Slingbox and watch a Patriots game, I am in my full rights to do so.

If I am listening to music and a friend calls and he can hear my music, am I illegally broadcasting the music?


Welcome to the great Digital Devide.

Guess, your ethics and mine are just a tad different.

Using your Slingbox example, then if I had friend(s) that wanted to access the members only sections of your web site but hadn't donated, you'd have no problem if I let them access via my PC using PCAnywhere/Terminal Service/Citrix??? If yes, what's the difference then what you say is OK with the Slingbox?

 

[BobMurdoch]

If the content provider, provides me a way to view the content through my distribution system of choice, then my ethics do compel me to pay for it.

If the content provider does NOT give me any other method (other than ripping out hundreds or thousands worth of investment to get a different system, especially one with inferior PQ or features), then I don't have problem securing alternative methods.

Once again, they can't talk out of both sides of their mouth. If you want taxpayer money to help finance your stadium, then you should be forced to acknowledge that every taxpayer has the right to be able to watch your team (provided they come up with a reasonable fee).

If you want to claim copyright protection, and state that it is a wholly owned brand and yo have every right to exploit it, then fine..... You get $0 dollars from the community in the form of taxation proceeds....

 

[vurbano]

There is a huge difference over hacing and moving.

Hacking is stealing.


Moving is Paying for programming you want to watch.

But which you have no right to get. In essence you are lying to get around the FCC laws for DMA's. The rules are in place to protect the local affiliates and they would argue that you are stealing money from them. Their existence depends on advertisers and if you reduce their veiwership they get less dollars and go out of business. Both acts should be criminal and should be prosecuted. It is not such a "huge" difference as you say. It is only a slight infraction if you ignore the rights of the affiliates. Many satellite viewers seem to hold affiliates in contempt for destroying their HD with subchannels etc and feel some sort of entitlement to getting stations they have no right to get.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

If the service is paid for how is that steeling?

Again why can I listen to any radio station on my computer? Why can I buy any news paper I want from anywhere, but I can't watch my hometown news because the NAB says its wrong?

As I said before thank god for Slingboxes.

And with IPTV its only going to snowball.

 

[vurbano]

If the service is paid for how is that steeling?

because you are paying someone for the service that has no right to sell it to you and you are getting it by lying about your address and damaging the party who has the only right to give you that signal in that DMA. In essence you are lying to get around the FCC laws for DMA's. The rules are in place to protect the local affiliates and they would argue that you are stealing money from them. Their existence depends on advertisers and if you reduce their veiwership they get less dollars and go out of business. Both acts should be criminal and should be prosecuted. It is not such a "huge" difference as you say. It is only a slight infraction if you ignore the rights of the affiliates. Many satellite viewers seem to hold affiliates in contempt for destroying their HD with subchannels etc and feel some sort of entitlement to getting stations they have no right to get.

 

[vurbano]

but I can't watch my hometown news because the NAB says its wrong?

No you cant watch it because the FCC says its wrong

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Her Vurbano,

Did you have a Superbowl party? If not did you go to one?

 

[vurbano]

Her Vurbano,

Did you have a Superbowl party? If not did you go to one?

No i didnt watch on a screen bigger than 55"? is it? It was at a friends house and it was 40" I think. And there were only 2 people. But that is the NFL's copyright garbage not an FCC law.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

So are you saying that the NFL's copyright is meaningless?

I see you pick and choose what laws you want to follow and which ones you don't.

 

[vurbano]

So are you saying that the NFL's copyright is meaningless?

I see you pick and choose what laws you want to follow and which ones you don't.

I think its silly but I honored it. I also think its impossible to enforce for everyone. Dont get me wrong, Im not a fan of the DMA stuff but it is the law. My discussion with you is purely from a standpoint of right and wrong, legal or illegal. Comeon, your mommy taught you that if you have to lie about something you are probably doing something "wrong" didnt she? And if your on the phone lying about your location then you should also suspect that you could be breaking the law.

 

[navychop]

Why should a local TV affiliate be "protected" when a local radio station is not?