Fashion Board 11-2-03 - 12-09-03

[SlaveNoMore]

mmm3587
And, maybe this makes me a legal timmy, and the economist in me comes through ("tragedy of the commons" and all that), but fuck you. Pay for it, asshole. Providers like DirecTV are the reason that the cable industry doesn't have the stranglehold they used to over tv. They're the reason that these assholes are innovating a little bit. They're the ones driving cable providers to have more HDTV available now. Because cable has been spanked by the flood to satellite tv.

So, fuck you, pay for it. You're a lawyer, you can afford it.

1) DirecTV goes out not only every single fucking time it rains, but anytime there is a substantial thunderstorm nearby

2) I also had the same exact set-up. Card reader attached to computer would change the card set-up everytime "Dave" [DirecTV in hacker speak] changed the codes. However, they upgraded to a different system and began switching codes every week. With the added work, the "hacker" pay sites began to lag behind and became more expensive. I gave up when I moved to a different NYC high-rise that didn't have a dish piped down through the existing cable system.

3) There are ways to have the codes constantly updated provided you have the box run through a computer and hard-wired to the Net. Too high tech for me to figure out.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Still harboring that grudge, huh?

Clue me in so we can both enjoy this joke.

Actually, the trick is that you (uhm, I) still pay the subscription fees, so its not exactly a free ride. Its more like I use more of their signals that they are already sending me than they think I am. But they are sending me the signals anyway. Disable features and intentionally limit functionality? You must be talking to someone else.

(1) So you're paying for a basic package, but descrambling all the premium and PPV channels. This makes it okay . . . how? You're in violation of the contract you signed or clicked through to get the service. And you're defrauding a business, which I thought was Treason to GOP types like you.

(2) Federal statutes make it illegal to possess equipment designed to intercept and decode an encrypted satellite signal. Any other laws from which you're exempt on the basis of your rational economic analysis? Are you an economist or an officer of the court? Don't pretend you're not a thief just because you can cloak your amorality in von Mises.

(3) DirecTV is forced to engineer and use electronic countermeasures to combat piracy. They may ultimately obsolesce the current generation of receivers in favor of more piracy-robust hardware. Since I bought my receiver, you're potentially imposing a cost on me. You can say DTV should give me a free receiver, and I agree. But if that doesn't happen, I blame you. PM me your home address so I can kick your ass if this happens.

(4) If your conduct were legalized, DTV's profits would drop to zero and they would exit the market entirely and no one would enter to replace them. Economist, tell me how you're promoting market efficiency, when that market was created by government fiat, and your conduct criminalized precisely to preserve that market and to incentivize new providers.

(5) DTV is talking about requiring a local phone line for every receiver to counter piracy. For the people who save by having cellular-only service and no home line, this will cost them money or force them away from the service.

(6) If you're just decoding signals they're already "sending you," and that's okay in your book, I take it you eavesdrop on neighbors' cordless phone calls and commandeer their WiFi LANs for free Internet access. After all, their radio signals are occupying your physical space. Therefore, they can be exploited, yes?

(7) The cable company has a box on the side of my house. It's disconnected, but it's on my property. Whoopee! I can take it and connect it to my TV! Federal statutes don't apply to me, because I have an 18th century view of property rights and an early 20th century view of economic theory!

What are the total of your scarecrow arguments that you allege I'm making?
Microsoft has a duty to stop viruses? Nope, Microsoft signals are only in my home by invitation.
Steal my neighbor's electricity? Nope, that would mean going over to my neighbor's house.

As a putative graduate of law school, I'm sure you recognize differences without distinctions. We've already established you have no compunctions against doing either of the above. If you're too lazy to cross the lawn, that's your loss.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by tmdiva
I don't know nuthin', so I'm talking out of a hole in my head, but I saw Outkast on SNL and thought they were fab. I haven't been a regular record-buyer in quite some time, but I've been seriously considering adding them to my collection. I also really liked Missy Elliott this last week, and that Black Eyed Peas song on the iPod commercial is catchy as a cold virus. And I saw someone on the AMAs while channel surfing--I think it must have been Sean Paul--and that song was pretty cool, too.

I caught the Apple Bottoms contest last night on VH-1 (they must have re-run it), and I was somewhat heartened at the idea of clothing that might actually fit my body type. But then I was disheartened all over again when I saw how cheap and skanky it all looked.

tm

note to tm: they call them "cd's" now. try to keep up with the hipster lingo.

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
Still harboring that grudge, huh?

Actually, the trick is that you (uhm, I) still pay the subscription fees, so its not exactly a free ride. Its more like I use more of their signals that they are already sending me than they think I am. But they are sending me the signals anyway. Disable features and intentionally limit functionality? You must be talking to someone else.

This I don't get.

Unlike a cable "hot box", whereby you have to subscribe to basic service to get it piped into your home (then the hotbox descrambles all the pay channels), all you need to get all 950 DirecTV and Music Channels is a Dish, a box, and a Card that was once activated.

[Hank Chinaski]

Do you write viruses in your spare time because it's Microsoft's responsibility to write programs to stop them? Do you plug your leaf blower into your neighbor's socket? Asshole.

I don't do those, but I do use the trademarks of companies not on my client list generically; like your earlier post about masturbation (or crying?), I would have said kleenex, not tissue.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Clue me in so we can both enjoy this joke.

Oh I don't think you'd get it google-boy, not even if it came back on every site returned by Google when you google the words "grudge" or "joke".

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
(1) So you're paying for a basic package, but descrambling all the premium and PPV channels. This makes it okay . . . how? You're in violation of the contract you signed or clicked through to get the service. And you're defrauding a business, which I thought was Treason to GOP types like you.

(2) Federal statutes make it illegal to possess equipment designed to intercept and decode an encrypted satellite signal. Any other laws from which you're exempt on the basis of your rational economic analysis? Are you an economist or an officer of the court? Don't pretend you're not a thief just because you can cloak your amorality in von Mises.

(3) DirecTV is forced to engineer and use electronic countermeasures to combat piracy. They may ultimately obsolesce the current generation of receivers in favor of more piracy-robust hardware. Since I bought my receiver, you're potentially imposing a cost on me. You can say DTV should give me a free receiver, and I agree. But if that doesn't happen, I blame you. PM me your home address so I can kick your ass if this happens.

(4) If your conduct were legalized, DTV's profits would drop to zero and they would exit the market entirely and no one would enter to replace them. Economist, tell me how you're promoting market efficiency, when that market was created by government fiat, and your conduct criminalized precisely to preserve that market and to incentivize new providers.

(5) DTV is talking about requiring a local phone line for every receiver to counter piracy. For the people who save by having cellular-only service and no home line, this will cost them money or force them away from the service.

(6) If you're just decoding signals they're already "sending you," and that's okay in your book, I take it you eavesdrop on neighbors' cordless phone calls and commandeer their WiFi LANs for free Internet access. After all, their radio signals are occupying your physical space. Therefore, they can be exploited, yes?

(7) The cable company has a box on the side of my house. It's disconnected, but it's on my property. Whoopee! I can take it and connect it to my TV! Federal statutes don't apply to me, because I have an 18th century view of property rights and an early 20th century view of economic theory!

1) Violation of a contract? Oh, I don't know bout that, it was years ago. Maybe it was in the small print, I dunno. But they still sold me the equipment, and I'd have cancelled the contract if I wouldn't have felt guilty!

2) Does that include equipment that you've bought from the provider of the scrambled signals? Cuz that's all the equipment I bought. Uhm, does that mean you will swallow the rest of the verbiage you used here?

3) Potentially imposing a cost on you? Believe me, every time you vote you impose costs on me. So you first with the PM'd address. I'll be sure to stop by to collect next time I'm in Ahnold-ville.

4) I'm promoting market efficiency by teaching them not to invade my home with things I can use. Now, if they added commercials, I just wouldn't have watched so much TV. That would be a market-driven solution, if I was really that much of a problem. Or they can just change the scrambling protocols enough to make it inefficient to decrypt. Oh, they did that. Clever bastards them.

5) And I'm talking about retiring when I finally find a hundred-bagger. Some day it'll happen. Til then its just blah blah blah.

6) You take a lot. Why would anything the neighbors say interest me? That's just sad. But if it scares you, I was taught how to do it in a former life. The free internet access is another story. I'd be commandeering the use of someone else's property on their property to do that. You didn't catch the difference the first 3 times I brought it up?

7) Would that work, or are you just being gratuitously stupid?

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

As a putative graduate of law school, I'm sure you recognize differences without distinctions. We've already established you have no compunctions against doing either of the above. If you're too lazy to cross the lawn, that's your loss.

Yes, you've clearly established that you don't see a distinction between drinking the water in your hose or crossing the lawn to commandeer the water in the neighbor's hose. Which is why you might think you've established what you've said "we've established".

But, just to teach me a lesson, if I buy DirectTV's equipment and then obtain the service by having the card printed, what exact law am I violating? Or are you just jealous?

Hello

PS I really appreciate you paying for the service and keeping the company in business. Without people like you, people like me wouldn't have it so good. Of course, on a different board, I'd assert that the opposite is true. But thanks! Hugs and kisses Mr. Grinch.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This I don't get.

Unlike a cable "hot box", whereby you have to subscribe to basic service to get it piped into your home (then the hotbox descrambles all the pay channels), all you need to get all 950 DirecTV and Music Channels is a Dish, a box, and a Card that was once activated.

Prehistoric paranoia. I had the service before I heard how the system worked. Once I had the card printed I just unplugged the phone, but figured I might as well keep paying for the basic service. Which is to say, I was just reiterating the point to establish that "free" was not exactly accurate. In any case, your assertion is 100% correct AFAIK.

Hello

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't do those, but I do use the trademarks of companies not on my client list generically; like your earlier post about masturbation (or crying?), I would have said kleenex, not tissue.

You should die. You trademark violating piece of shit. Just die.


And damn Hello, that's some pretty impressive dancing you're doing there. I don't much care one way or the other whether you intercept the signal that is already going towards your home, but, as they say, de nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by leagleaze
You should die. You trademark violating piece of shit. Just die.

I believe he has already died and been reborn.

Perhaps if Phelps has the notorious sinner role, Hank can play the other part.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by leagleaze
You should die. You trademark violating piece of shit. Just die.


And damn Hello, that's some pretty impressive dancing you're doing there. I don't much care one way or the other whether you intercept the signal that is already going towards your home, but, as they say, de nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

Actually kleenex prefers it that way, so I'm not sure there is a violation. But I'm no IP attorney. Excuse me while I go and find a band aid.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by leagleaze
You should die. You trademark violating piece of shit. Just die.


And damn Hello, that's some pretty impressive dancing you're doing there. I don't much care one way or the other whether you intercept the signal that is already going towards your home, but, as they say, de nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

The trick is that I'm almost always on the other side of these arguments, kinda like an ex prosecutor going crim D. Believe me, 1.) I feel dirty even arguing like this, 2.) I don't do it anymore, and I'm not sure it would even be worth it if I were so inclined, and 3.) hell hath no fury.

Its people like me that force companies to innovate. No. Wait. Its people like me that force DirectTV to innovate. Its the rest of you sticky-fingered muthas that force everyone else to innovate.

Hello

[dc_chef]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
In another funny twist, she did turn out to be so flat chested that t/fing would be out of the question for her.

The horror, the horror.

[Hank Chinaski]

deleted TM timmy post

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Actually kleenex prefers it that way, so I'm not sure there is a violation. But I'm no IP attorney. Excuse me while I go and find a band aid.

If kleenex becomes synonomous with tissue, the term becomes descriptive and they can lose their trademark protection. They want you to do it but they don't. It's the age old battle between marketing and legal.

I'm sorry about your boo-boo.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by dc_chef
The horror, the horror.

I invented this line (well, I stole it from Apocolypse Now, which stole it from Heart of Darkness).

But I also gave it up, and let it go into the public domain. All I ask is that you preserve my moral rights.