DirecTV: The next RIAA?

[Chris Swingler]

From Slashdot

DirecTV Sues Anyone Who Bought Smartcard Reader?
from the absolutely-insane dept.
MImeKillEr writes "The Register is reporting that DirecTV is suing anyone known to have purchased a smartcard programmer, regardless of whether or not they're actually using the device to enable stealing their programming. They're sending out letters & when people call to clear up the confusion, DirecTV is demanding a $3500 settlement as well as the programming device. They've filed 9000 federal lawsuits against alleged pirates thus far. They're obtaining lists of who purchased the devices during raids against the sites that offer them for sale."

Hmm... I didn't have a choice as to whether I wanted my SCR or not when I bought my computer--it was a feature Soyo included with my motherboard.  Anyone think I should be off in search of a good lawyer? :)

--Beanie

[William Grim]

Can we say R E T A R D E D?!

Companies these days are becoming more and more "protective" of their equipment.

You know what?  #OOPS# all the companies!  If they think their #OOPS# is that good, then THEY can keep it!  I highly doubt all those people are awesome smartcard programmer people who just have it in for DirecTV because DirecTV is awesome and I wanna be like DirecTV and I'm going to sell my soul to DirecTV and DirecTV DirecTV DirecTV DirecTV.

I take it you get the point.

I would say "leave it to the courts," but apparently they're pretty damn stupid these days too.  What, with 9/11 and all.  USA's freedoms are going down the drain; we might as well move to China.

[Stiffler]

@wgrim - Here is a direct quote from Dubya, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier." - George W. Bush Jr. 07/27/2001.

That should tell you something about why our freedoms are trickling away.

Jon

[DaleDoe]

Jon, that's a nice quote from W.  That was actually one of the critizations by philosopher Jeremy Bentham about the US checks & balances.

As far as the moving to China, I don't think so.  If it ever gets bad enough here, I could move to Mexico.  Last I knew the exchange rate was pretty good.  Guns are illegal in Mexico.  I'll just get the biggest gun I can find, move to a rural area and reign supreme.  Maybe I can mount a machine gun to my car & have a tank.  Then the US can go after me for having a WMD.  Does anybody know where I can get some tank treads? Or an old bulldozer perhaps?

Do you guys actually think I'd give away my exit strategy? HaHaHa (and more evil laughter):lol:

[Ryan Lintker]

That is a nice quote from our president, at least in the context in which it was said.  Mr. Bush was referring to his struggles with the US Congress during his first six months in office and how it was a learning experience in the game of give and take and compromise.  I don't see how the quote directly relates to our losing freedoms, or how W is directly or mostly responsible for loss of freedom.

Personally, I think that greed is the greatest culprit here.  Record companies and media providers are greedy for huge revenues.  They overcharge their consumers for the genuine crap that they provide.

Consumer greed is also responsible.  I want all of the music and movies I can stand and all of the latest software for free.  That makes me a greedy person making the greedy companies find the nearest courtroom or senator to help them make me pay.  More than half of the people that I know that have a dish also have an illegal card so they can get something for nothing using the reasoning that all of those signals are occupying their airspace.

Greedy companies + greedy consumers = more rules + less freedoms

[DaleDoe]

Ryan has a good point and is fairly accurate in his assessment of the situation.  As far as the Bush quote, that was exactly Bentham's point.  As far as Ryan's greed equation,

Ryan wrote:
Greedy companies + greedy consumers = more rules + less freedoms

he is missing one small factor:  greedy elected representatives (and others in positions of power).  However, that makes the RHS of the equation much more complicated.  It makes less freedoms for those w/o the money to pay the greedy politicial whores and more freedoms for those with the money to walk all over everyone else.

Face it.  Money buys freedom.  Just ask any celebrity who has ever committed a crime and any poor man who has ever been in jail.  Who would've thought paper could be so powerful?  Why is it powerful?  Whell, it all circles back to greed.  It is amazing how cheap people will sell their souls. :-$

[Guest]

Ryan wrote:
Greedy companies + greedy consumers = more rules + less freedoms

no,
greedy companies + greedy consumers = capitalism,
and it's worked pretty well for 200 years now without resulting in less freedoms.  unlimited wants & needs have always existed, it's nothing new.  the loss of freedoms is new.

GW is responsible, because he's the president, and at the very least he's guilty by inaction.
you can't reasonably say the 'most powerful man on earth' is powerless to stop the erosion of freedoms in his own backyard.

[Ryan Lintker]

Whew, thanks digit for setting me straight.  Silly me thought that capitalism could work without greed.  I've been part of a capitalistic operation for years and have had my own livestock business for seven years now.  Farming is a very capitalistic enterprise.  Turning a profit is what keeps capitalism going, which does not require a person to be greedy.  Greedy farmers and greedy companies have hurt the family farmer tremendously, to an extent that in the near future, the family farmer will be a thing of the past.  If everybody involved in this capitalistic system would think without the unneccessary greed that results from being human, we would be much better off.  Saying that capitalism is all about greed is an overstatement, allthough it may look like greed is at the center of today's marketplace, with the record companies, enron, martha stewart, etc.

If greedy people didn't pirate satellite tv or music or software we wouldn't be having these lawsuits or new laws being created.  If these companies didn't have huge corporate salaries to pay, they would charge a fair price for their products and the consumer would be less likely to try and steal it.  Ah, the circle of greedy bastards goes on.

I think that freedoms have been lacking many times in the last 200 years in America.  Many PEOPLE weren't free until 1863.  (2003-1863=140 years ago)  That was all about capitalism there.  The freedom to vote for women and non-landowners, etc.  The list goes on and on, so maybe our loss of freedom today isn't all that new or that significant in the grand scheme of things.  I can deal with not downloading a song or getting free pay per view if I'm not owned by someone else.

 
Anyway, blaming all of this on the president doesn't seem fair.  About half of Illinois' dairy farms shut down while slick willy was in office, mine was one of them.  The most powerful man at the time surely could have done something about it.  If he had, I could have made a career being a sixth generation farmer, but now I can't.  I know better than to blame poor bill.  Being president is a tough job, and getting blamed for things that are happening in congress and the courts is pretty harsh, but I guess it sure makes people feel better to blame everything that is wrong in the world today on the "most powerful man in the world."

[DaleDoe]

Ryan is quite right.

Did you intend a double meaning with the term:

slick willy

:-D

[Guest]

Anyway, blaming all of this on the president doesn't seem fair.

he's signing the laws that are taking away freedom.
it's pretty easy for him to stop them, all he had to do use that nice big VETO.

The most powerful man at the time surely could have done something about it.

if i'm not mistaken, the farming industry already gets huge subsidies & federal aid as it is.  it's hard to blame the government on this issue when they're handing out billions in aid.  and as far as i'm aware, clinton didn't pass any laws that "stuck it to the farm industry" while he was in office.  

george dubya *has* signed numerous laws that take away "personal rights". congress can make laws all day if they want, but they're meaningless until they get signed into law - by dubya.

don't get me wrong, clinton wasn't exactly great on the issue of "personal rights", but bush has done nothing to undo the "damage", and he's only been making things worse.
and if you don't think the president can effect change(s) in the US, who can?  

Turning a profit is what keeps capitalism going, which does not require a person to be greedy.

nice contradiction.  turning a profit only happens after you've already met your expenses (which includes employee salaries), which means that if you're not "breaking even", you could afford to lower the price of your products.
if you're charging more money than what the net cost to you is, is that not greed?  so in order to turn a profit you have to be greedy; this makes your statement above wholly contradictory.

Being president is a tough job, and getting blamed for things that are happening in congress and the courts is pretty harsh,

last time i checked, the government is structured into three *interdependent* branches.  the whole concept of checks & balances gives dubya quite a bit of power over congress & the courts.

I can deal with not downloading a song or getting free pay per view if I'm not owned by someone else.

unfortunately that's not the only right you've lost.  it sounds as though you're blissfully & wholly unaware of the flurry of laws that have been passed since dubya's been in office.

it's also interesting that you point to slavery as a comparison to losing rights today, in modern times.  if someone said "i'm doing fine, compared to people with ebola!", that's not saying much for their health, now is it?
by saying "losing these rights isn't bad compared to slavery", what does that say about the current state of your rights? :-P

If greedy people didn't pirate satellite tv or music or software we wouldn't be having these lawsuits or new laws being created.

and do you think satellite tv, music, and software you speak of is the result of purely altruistic reasons, or do you think that greed was the driving factor behind their creation?  Greed isn't a new concept either, neither is theft.  

I think that freedoms have been lacking many times in the last 200 years in America. Many PEOPLE weren't free until 1863. (2003-1863=140 years ago) That was all about capitalism there. The freedom to vote for women and non-landowners, etc. The list goes on and on, so maybe our loss of freedom today isn't all that new or that significant in the grand scheme of things.

you cite a trend of increasing freedoms over time, and then conclude that the current LOSS of freedoms isn't new.

If everybody involved in this capitalistic system would think without the unneccessary greed that results from being human, we would be much better off.

"we" would be better off?  maybe people in third world countries, but certainly not americans.  tell me, do you wear nice clothes, or do you wear merely functional clothes? do you drive a nice car, or merely a functional one?  do you buy luxury items, like music, tv, etc?  Exactly what is "unneccessary"? did you go to college to 'better yourself mentally', or because you hoped to get a better paying job?
where exactly do you draw the line of being "greedy"?  $30,000/year?  $60,000/year?  $100,000?

did you know that the average american only makes $24,500 a year (in 1995, the first google-statistics I found)?
if you want more than "average", what does that say about you?  isn't that 'unecessary' greed?

i suspect that in actuality, you *could* be a farmer, had you wanted to be, as long as you are willing to accept the 'dimished' lifestyle as a result.  if the AVERAGE is only $24K, you could probably even afford to go "below average" to an extent.
However, the "greed" for nice cars, big TV's, etc. has driven you away from farming.
oh, and tell me why, among all the choices you had, did you chose CS as a career path?
let me guess - it was because of the MONEY.
now, tell me again, capitalism isn't about greed?

[Guest]

the consumer would be less likely to try and steal it.

People try to steal pretty much anything, regardless of the price.  you could set up a lemonade stand and sell lemonade for $.05, and if you left it unattended people would STILL steal your lemonade.
i'd guess that price is pretty irrelevant, it's more likely that "opportunity" & "ease of theft" is a much greater factor (professional thieves aside).

[William Grim]

My GOD, Digit, you like to troll.  Please stop doing that.

Ryan and others were simply stating points, but you deliberately argue with each one of them.  Don't give me that "I'm trying to make them think" speech either.  I'm sure they've all thought about this and have feelings on it, just as you do.

Right now, you're doing nothing to change my view, that's for sure.

I really doubt the whole thing with "losing these rights isn't as bad as slavery" was meant to imply we enjoy losing these rights and shouldn't do something about it just because it isn't as bad as slavery.  You're really digging for an argument, hence trolling.

Also, not everyone on here is greedy, nor everyone in CS.  I like to have things and am in CS because I like it.  Money plays a factor, but that's just plain and simple survival.  If you think you can do everything in life and survive, go for it, you won't be missed.  However, some of us want to live a decent life with our family.  That isn't greedy at all.  Greed would be wanting this and that until you had it all.

As for greed being the central drive of capitalism, it is not.  Since you like to attack the farmers so much, I'll use that as an example.  My father's side of the family does much farming and is feeling the pressure of large corporations and their huge farms.  If you think farmers can just "survive" as farmers, that might currently be true, but Ryan is probably thinking long term.  It'd be ridiculous for him to invest much in farming now, knowing that down the road he won't be able to survive on that.  In fact, much of my father's side of the family has started to do the same, cash out before it's too late for them.

Also, let's pretend for a moment that we didn't have farmers.  Are you greedy for wanting food to feed your stomach?  I mean, when you're full, after that, it's jsut greed, right?  At least, according to the way you're tossing around the term it is.  Farming was hardly created out of greediness; it was created out of a need for farmers.  Some farmers got rich; good for them.  However, greed is hardly the central cause of that industry springing up.  And if you think that farming somehow isn't an important part to the US economy, you should check the books.  It's a VERY LARGE part of the economy; I don't know how much though.

Perhaps you should be smart, pick up a dictionary, and tell us the meaning of greed straight from Webster's dictionary.  I guarantee you that wanting a happy life is not considered greedy by the definition of that word.  I know, because I already checked the mearning in two different sources, including that one.

Stop the trolling. *Hint*

[Guest]

>>Also, not everyone on here is greedy, nor everyone in CS.

did I claim as much?  it seems to me that YOU'RE digging for the argument now

>>Perhaps you should be smart, pick up a dictionary, and tell us the meaning of greed straight from Webster's dictionary. I guarantee you that wanting a happy life is not considered greedy by the definition of that word.

Greed: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greed
"An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth"
like i asked in my previous post, where exactly do you draw the line of "NEEDING", in regards to money?  
how much money/year constitutes a "happy life"?

if you only make $20K/year, is it impossible to have a "happy life"?

if Ryan does what he likes, farming, but only makes $20K/year, would he be less happy than if he did something he may not like (comp sci), but makes $60K/year?

[Aaron Drake]

I think the following new smilies can best express my feelings about this thread:









(Sorry for the gratuitous smilie usage... I just couldn't help myself.  ;-))

[Ryan Lintker]

Did you intend a double meaning with the term:  slick willy?

Of course I did.  :-)