# Does direct TV know if your reciever is being used at another residence?



## mxl360 (Apr 27, 2008)

Hey guys I'm new here. I no longer have directv but I still have the satelite. Once in a while I would borrow my friends receiver to watch some sport games. Does directv know?

thanks!


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

Only if you plug it into a phone line and leave it plugged in overnight.


----------



## mxl360 (Apr 27, 2008)

Its never plug in a phone line. Either places. Thanks!


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

that is illegal


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

Beware of the Directv police! There everywhere, There everywhere!


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

What you propose is theft and punishable by many years in jail. It also drives up costs for us honest people who pay our bills.


----------



## Juppers (Oct 26, 2006)

It isn't illegal, but it is a breach of contract for your friend. There is no jail time involved, and it doesn't increase the costs to everyone else.


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

That sounds like it makes more sense. It's not theft, because someone is paying for the service. It just being moved around without permission. I don't see the big deal.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

There's probably nothing illegal in what you're doing because the receiver is definitely under subscription with DirecTV. However, DirecTV requires that receivers located in different households have their own subscription. This is to prevent more than one household piggybacking multiple subscriptions on a single account. Some unscrupulous individuals may try to get an unwarranted discount by simply adding more receivers to a single account and then locating them in different households. This would circumvent the cost of the primary package and cut down DirecTV's profit margin considerably. 

I have no doubt that this goes on all the time but the end result is that it drives up the costs for legit subscribers since it affects how much DirecTV pays for the various channels. If the providers aren't seeing enough revenue for their service they have to charge DirecTV more to carry their programming in order to see a reasonable profit. I honestly don't know how DirecTV negotiates for each program channel so I'm not sure if they pay by the subscriber or if they pay a fixed amount for the term of the contract. If they pay by the subscriber then the provider is affected directly. If DirecTV pays a fixed amount then DirecTV takes the hit. Either way, a shortfall in customers actually paying for any given channel affects everyone in the long run.


----------



## wilmot3 (Jul 24, 2007)

that would be the same as someone haveing a summer home in the country and haveing a system there. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT!!!!


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

Read the Terms of Service. I'm not going to quote them verbatim, but your "service address" is part of the agreement. DirecTV likes to be really sticky about the rules when it is to their advantage. If it were to the customer's advantage, maybe it could be overlooked...


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

wilmot3 said:


> that would be the same as someone haveing a summer home in the country and haveing a system there. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT!!!!


no it is not, because your main system will be dormant when you are away.


----------



## myselfalso (Jan 26, 2006)

Yeah, there's nothing criminally illegal here. D* would likely sue for damages via breach of contract.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

mxl360 said:


> Hey guys I'm new here. I no longer have directv but I still have the satelite. Once in a while I would borrow my friends receiver to watch some sport games. Does directv know?
> 
> thanks!


No, they don't know. The datastream is one way. There is nothing illegal about what you are doing, and you will not be sued. It is against the company's rules, so the worst thing that can happen is your friend's service is shut off. Please ignore all the ledge jumpers.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Then why does not there exist just one account and everybody just "borrow" one of the 12 million receivers set up for it?

It most certainly is illegal to steal service you do not pay for.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

As I am not a lawyer and have not read the current laws about theft of cable services, I can only offer my belief.

Since the OP would be receiving cable services he has not paid for, that is breaking the laws regarding theft of cable. While the receiver is "paid for", it is not paid for at that location so it enjoys a reduced cost.

This is completely the same thing as me running a wire to my neighbor's house to get his cable service. Highly illegal, as far as I know.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## PicaKing (Oct 8, 2006)

mxl360 said:


> Hey guys I'm new here. I no longer have directv but I still have the satelite. Once in a while I would borrow my friends receiver to watch some sport games. Does directv know?
> 
> thanks!


They know now---I just told them.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

PicaKing said:


> They know now---I just told them.


You "told them" that an anonymous online forum poster from the East Coast is illegally receiving DIRECTV service...

Don't you think the OP "told them" simply by posting here?


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> This is completely the same thing as me running a wire to my neighbor's house to get his cable service. Highly illegal, as far as I know.
> Cheers,
> Tom


Not really the same. The same would be if you ran a cable to your house, and hooked your neighbors digital cable box up to it. Just running a cable would be stealing, but moving the cable box would be having the same paid-for (unstolen) service at a different location.

I'm not endorsing this idea...I think it's a bad idea, but it's kind of a stretch to call it illegal.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I think it might be a criminal ofence it might come under tampering whit telecommunication services.Up to a 25000 dollar fine. Just ask O.J. Simpson.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

ChrashHD, you still are still stealing the service without paying for it. The receiver rental might be paid for, but not the service.

So in your example, the box isn't stolen.  I suppose that's better than stealing both the box and the service--but the service is still stolen. Illegal.

(In my opinion.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

With the power of the almighty Google:

http://cable.signaltheft.tv/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=3&meid=3



> 12.04 CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND PENALTIES. (a) In General:
> 
> Any Person who violates section 12.01 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain (such as, including "free" cable or satellite signal as part of the rent package or having a tennant pay a minimal charge directly to the landlord for the service) -
> 
> ...


----------



## dgordo (Aug 29, 2004)

The DMCA makes this illegal.

Edit-just saw the post by RobertE, that is the section from the DMCA that I was referring to.


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

wow...that's some pretty heavy stuff.

Next month I'm going to visit a friend of mine who lives 2 states away for a week to help him with some home renovations. I was going to take along my dvr so in the evenings we could catch up on a past season of a tv show we both like. I was going to hook it to a sat so the only missed recordings would be locals while there...looks like not such a good idea anymore. Would that be ok if the dvr was not hooked to a satellite?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CrashHD, one key question about your situation. Will there be anyone left at your home while you are helping your friend?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

My wife has not decided if she will come along...so maybe/maybe not.


----------



## Directv superwoman (Apr 20, 2008)

crashHD said:


> wow...that's some pretty heavy stuff.
> 
> Next month I'm going to visit a friend of mine who lives 2 states away for a week to help him with some home renovations. I was going to take along my dvr so in the evenings we could catch up on a past season of a tv show we both like. I was going to hook it to a sat so the only missed recordings would be locals while there...looks like not such a good idea anymore. Would that be ok if the dvr was not hooked to a satellite?


yes you can take your dvr on vacation but dont hook it to a dish but you can watch anything in the memory


----------



## PicaKing (Oct 8, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> You "told them" that an anonymous online forum poster from the East Coast is illegally receiving DIRECTV service...
> 
> Don't you think the OP "told them" simply by posting here?


OK, it was a joke. I thought that would be obvious, but maybe not.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

I will repeat, don't listen to the ledge jumpers. You are doing nothing illegal. You are doing something against D*'s rules. Huge difference. The most they can do is shut your friends service off. In fact, it's only he that is breaking their rules, not you. It would only be illegal if your friend was selling the boxes for profit, or you were hacking the access cards. I have more experience than I care to share in this matter, but let's just say, courtesy of me, D* still bears a few ugly scars.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Directv superwoman said:


> yes you can take your dvr on vacation but dont hook it to a dish but you can watch anything in the memory


However, after a certain period disconnected from the dish, the receiver will start to complain and will then deny playback until sat signal is again detected. (The receiver allows access without sat signal for only a relatively short period for times of rain fade, bad weather, etc.)


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

PicaKing said:


> OK, it was a joke. I thought that would be obvious, but maybe not.


Sorry - I didn't get that you were joking. :nono:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> I will repeat, don't listen to the ledge jumpers. You are doing nothing illegal. You are doing something against D*'s rules. Huge difference. The most they can do is shut your friends service off. In fact, it's only he that is breaking their rules, not you. It would only be illegal if your friend was selling the boxes for profit, or you were hacking the access cards. I have more experience than I care to share in this matter, but let's just say, courtesy of me, D* still bears a few ugly scars.


You are welcome to your opinions too, but name calling is bad form and weakens your points.

I don't know your history nor your timeline vs. the current round of DCMA laws. I still consider it an act of theft of cable service as you are not paying for the cable service. Only the mirroring/leasing fees which is very different.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ironwood (Sep 20, 2007)

This is the same as downloading free music online. Illegal but authorities cant arrest everyone.


----------



## kikkenit2 (Oct 26, 2006)

ironwood said:


> This is the same as downloading free music online. Illegal but authorities cant arrest everyone.


Illegal song downloading is not a criminal offense. It is a civil infringement. They can't arrest you for this. They must sue for damages although they are pressuring congress to make it a crime.


----------



## PANCHITO (Apr 8, 2006)

It's as illegal as directv charging for receivers customers don't have in their account because tech forgot to deactivate when it was replace.


----------



## mxl360 (Apr 27, 2008)

OK .. that was alot of posting.

So to sum it up... it probably is illegal, but undetectable.


----------



## Lyle Thorogood (Jun 27, 2004)

So if you take your RV out on vacation with it's own receiver and travel the U.S. AND still have family at home using additional mirror'ed equipment... this is stealing as well???? So what would the difference be if you took a receiver to your vacation home for a week or month? 

Sorry but I can't see this being "illegal"... as long as the traveling receiver stays with the FAMILY it is leased to I doubt this would even be an issue. My XM Satellite recievers move around and about in my car(s), my house, my office, my parents house, friends house etc... but it stays with me and/or other family members. I pay for it and it is in MY name. I can do what I want with it.

Now... loaning a SERVICE in your name to other individuals is SIGNAL THEFT. Utilizing SERVICE at two owned residencial addresses under the same service name would be UNETHICAL.


----------



## NCMAT (Feb 13, 2007)

Directv superwoman said:


> yes you can take your dvr on vacation but dont hook it to a dish but you can watch anything in the memory


Unless something has changed recently, I don't think the HR-2X DVRs will even boot up unless they see the 110 satellite.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> You are welcome to your opinions too, but name calling is bad form and weakens your points.
> 
> I don't know your history nor your timeline vs. the current round of DCMA laws. I still consider it an act of theft of cable service as you are not paying for the cable service. Only the mirroring/leasing fees which is very different.
> 
> ...


Tom,

My apologies if you felt I was name calling. Not sure to what you are referring. You are confusing civil litigation with illegal. Illegal implies you can be arrested and put in jail. If no one profited, there is nothing illegal. Also, the OP has been given the receiver by his friend. His friend would be the only one who would be violating D*'s terms. The OP has done nothing wrong.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

If I may jump in here, you are also bound by your customer agreement. Discussion of how to void your customer agreement is strongly frowned upon.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Juppers said:


> It isn't illegal, but it is a breach of contract for your friend. There is no jail time involved, and it doesn't increase the costs to everyone else.


Its called Signal/Mirror Fraud.
ANd *is* punishable by jailtime. Usually around 5 years.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Lyle Thorogood said:


> So if you take your RV out on vacation with it's own receiver and travel the U.S. AND still have family at home using additional mirrored equipment... this is stealing as well???? So what would the difference be if you took a receiver to your vacation home for a week or month?
> 
> Sorry but I can't see this being "illegal"... as long as the traveling receiver stays with the FAMILY it is leased to I doubt this would even be an issue. My XM Satellite recievers move around and about in my car(s), my house, my office, my parents house, friends house etc... but it stays with me and/or other family members. I pay for it and it is in MY name. I can do what I want with it.
> 
> Now... loaning a SERVICE in your name to other individuals is SIGNAL THEFT. Utilizing SERVICE at two owned residential addresses under the same service name would be UNETHICAL.


The policy reads that if you own 2/more locations and would like to use the same account, the receivers in the other locations shouldnt be used simultaneously. NOW, is DirecTV going to KNOW that my kid got up and watched Dora the explorer in Las Vegas while I was watching Monk in Utah?
Probably not... And they probably wouldnt care, either. Bigger fish to fry.

Not that they _cant_ bust you for it, but usually its not worth the money & the litigation. The policy also states if you'd like to use service in 2 seperate locations at the same time you need to have 2 seperate accounts.

This setup is perfect for people like Snowbirds, who have property in say, Florida, and, Utah, plus an add'l receiver in the motorhome. DirecTV doesnt mind if you call every couple of months and say, Hey, im going back east/west. But, if you have a big family, and your grandparents are in Florida while yer in Utah... They dont take kindly to it.

DirecTV would prefer that if you have multiple locations like... an RV and a home, and/or a vacation home, that the receivers in the *non-primary* location are owned.

EDIT:
Take a look at this thread.
Thats the way to do it if its your account. But, thats not the OP's case.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

heisman said:


> Tom,
> 
> My apologies if you felt I was name calling. Not sure to what you are referring. You are confusing civil litigation with illegal. Illegal implies you can be arrested and put in jail. If no one profited, there is nothing illegal. Also, the OP has been given the receiver by his friend. His friend would be the only one who would be violating D*'s terms. The OP has done nothing wrong.


While I disagree with most aspects of the DMCA you do not need to profit from it to face civil or ciminal penalties. Not saying they will go out and actively hunt you down for doing this but there can be ramifications should the provider want to press the case.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I think that although there is conflicting opinion as to whether any criminal laws are broken, the practice is at least a violation of the subscriber's agreement, and this thread should be closed!

Just my opinion.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Anytime there is healthy discussion and since we are not actively promoting breaking the rules but which rules potentially are being broken, this thread can stay open.

I tend to dislike closing threads as we don't like to over moderate.

Threads that refuse to play nice will get closed, reluctantly and typically after several warnings.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Rakul said:


> While I disagree with most aspects of the DMCA you do not need to profit from it to face civil or ciminal penalties. Not saying they will go out and actively hunt you down for doing this but there can be ramifications should the provider want to press the case.


Profit may have been the wrong word, but they do need to show damages.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

CJTE said:


> Its called Signal/Mirror Fraud.
> ANd *is* punishable by jailtime. Usually around 5 years.


Ohhh..... the old signal/mirror fraud law. Forgot about that one. :lol:

Once again, you are citing D*'s policies. I found one case citing your "law" and it was in civil court, where the defendant was selling receivers on his own account. He had sold over 50, and it cost him plenty. Once again, this was in civil court.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

heisman said:


> Ohhh..... the old signal/mirror fraud law. Forgot about that one. :lol:
> 
> Once again, you are citing D*'s policies. I found one case citing your "law" and it was in civil court, where the defendant was selling receivers on his own account. He had sold over 50, and it cost him plenty. Once again, this was in civil court.


Actually.. Signal fraud and Mirror fraud are 2 different penalties.
And in the OPs case its Mirror fraud.

Im not saying DirecTV is actively hunting down every single "law breaker"... But, they have the right to.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

CJTE said:


> Actually.. Signal fraud and Mirror fraud are 2 different penalties.
> And in the OPs case its Mirror fraud.
> 
> Im not saying DirecTV is actively hunting down every single "law breaker"... But, they have the right to.


I totally agree. But they (D*) would be doing the hunting, with a summons to civil court. What you were saying is that the OP was breaking a law, which means the FBI would be doing the hunting, and come knocking on his door with a summons to appear in federal court.

Now, in terms of violating policy, the OP is not violating any policy. The subscriber who gave him the receiver would be violating the policy.


----------



## kaszeta (Apr 8, 2008)

Drew2k said:


> However, after a certain period disconnected from the dish, the receiver will start to complain and will then deny playback until sat signal is again detected. (The receiver allows access without sat signal for only a relatively short period for times of rain fade, bad weather, etc.)


Doesn't this depend on the receiver? I've got an older DSR704 that still happily lets me watch the stuff I recorded on it, and it's been disconnected from both the phone and dish for a long time. It does carp mightily, however, about how it has no signal.

My HR20, however, refuses to do playback after a protracted period of signal loss.


----------



## workindev (Jun 1, 2007)

For those of you who think this is illegal, which of the following would you also consider illegal:

- If the OP's friend was also at the house watching the game in his own receiver
- If they left the receiver at the friends house and they watched the games at the OP's house through a slingbox
- If the friend recorded the programming at his house and brought it over to the OP's house or let him borrow the recording

All of the above examples (including the OP's) may be against DirecTV policy, but I don't see how any of them can be considered illegal. The service is being paid for. Timeshifting has been ruled as acceptable fair use by the courts, and placeshifting hasn't been challenged in court yet so there is no binding legal opinion either way to its legality or illegality.


----------



## FireMedic8039 (Dec 24, 2007)

There has been a discussion before on this matter. But I will ask the expert here.
I take one of my boxes for tailgating for years now. And use it to watch Sportscenter and the NFL Today while tailgating with 20 people. And then return it back to where it was when I return home from the game. There are Sat's all over the parking lot. My bracket is even attached to the truck bed for fast hook up. This is illegal?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Juppers said:


> It isn't illegal, but it is a breach of contract for your friend. There is no jail time involved, and it doesn't increase the costs to everyone else.


if it was all the time, it would be signal theft, and totally illegal, time to time is breach of contract and can get the friend's account cancelled


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

FireMedic8039 said:


> There has been a discussion before on this matter. But I will ask the expert here.
> I take one of my boxes for tailgating for years now. And use it to watch Sportscenter and the NFL Today while tailgating with 20 people. And then return it back to where it was when I return home from the game. There are Sat's all over the parking lot. My bracket is even attached to the truck bed for fast hook up. This is illegal?


I suspect that goes in the category of no one really cares or totally legit. You've basically built your own SatGo, which is a legitimate receiver. 

Now, if you sell tickets for the 20 people to watch 

Seriously, I really doubt this is a problem at all.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hillncharge (Jan 24, 2008)

What if you are paying for service, your spouse is in a different location for six months and each of you have a receiver. Would you consider it to be a illegal?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

hillncharge said:


> What if you are paying for service, your spouse is in a different location for six months and each of you have a receiver. Would you consider it to be a illegal?


both rcvrs in different locations, but on same account, yes, that is mirroring fraud


----------



## wilmot3 (Jul 24, 2007)

dave29 said:


> no it is not, because your main system will be dormant when you are away.


if I pay the bill and want to watch MY tv that I pay for then I should be able to watch it whether I am in NYC or my summer home in PA !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

wilmot3 said:


> if I pay the bill and want to watch MY tv that I pay for then I should be able to watch it whether I am in NYC or my summer home in PA !!!!!!!!!!


Tell that to comcast, time warner, HBO, etc. I'd like to hear their response...


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

It's theft. Period.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

wilmot3 said:


> if I pay the bill and want to watch MY tv that I pay for then I should be able to watch it whether I am in NYC or my summer home in PA !!!!!!!!!!


you can, as long as you take your receivers with you and your other home is dormant


----------



## Dwrecked (Mar 2, 2007)

curt8403 said:


> both rcvrs in different locations, but on same account, yes, that is mirroring fraud


Source?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dave29 said:


> you can, as long as you take your receivers with you and your other home is dormant


This is not necessarily true.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Dwrecked said:


> Source?


I think it's been discussed ad nauseum and agreed upon in this thread. Plus I'd take Curt's word on what DirecTV's policy is.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

No matter what you want to call it it will cause problems for all of us. Directv will start to enforce phone line connection. Affecting people whit cell phones only and voip.
And increase prices.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> This is not necessarily true.


from what i understand..... as long as it is ok'ed by directv and they are notified. other than that....... like i said the other day......... it is illegal


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> I think it's been discussed ad nauseum and agreed upon in this thread. Plus I'd take Curt's word on what DirecTV's policy is.


totally agree..... now we need to let this thread die off onto page 2


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

dave29 said:


> totally agree..... now we need to let this thread die off onto page 2


Come on, you've been around here long enough to know that threads like this just don't die, dave29!!

Witness: 24hr PPV thread, gas prices thread, sketchy installer thread, etc, etc  :lol:


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

kaszeta said:


> Drew2k said:
> 
> 
> > However, after a certain period disconnected from the dish, the receiver will start to complain and will then deny playback until sat signal is again detected. (The receiver allows access without sat signal for only a relatively short period for times of rain fade, bad weather, etc.)
> ...


You're right - some receivers may function differently after powering-up without sat signals detected. In the case of the HR20/21, it's only for short period (unknown how long) that you can watch without satellite signals.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

gfrang said:


> No matter what you want to call it it will cause problems for all of us. Directv will start to enforce phone line connection. Affecting people whit cell phones only and voip.
> And increase prices.


That's exactly what I was thinking. E* already does this. (they charge extra for non connected receivers.)


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

dave29 said:


> ...it is illegal


It's just as "illegal" as a Kelvin Sampson phone call.


----------



## slimline (Oct 30, 2007)

yea and dont take that second box and put it in the rv.......


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

What is the local or federal statute for "mirroring fraud?" Is it a felony or misdemeanor?


curt8403 said:


> both rcvrs in different locations, but on same account, yes, that is mirroring fraud


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Tell that to comcast, time warner, HBO, etc. I'd like to hear their response...


You can't compare cable to satellite in this instance because cable companies only serve specific areas; you can't take your Charter service to an area in the wilderness where cables haven't been run.

You could however likely call the cable company and suspend service at one residence while activating at another, if the same company serves both residences.

I understand fully the rules against mirroring violations, but don't understand why anyone would get their dander up over moving a single box from one location to another _temporarily_ for the owner's personal enjoyment. It's my box and my subscription, I should be able to enjoy it (for short periods) at alternate locations if such a setup is viable.

Another posted alluded to making recordings and bringing them to a different location or using a Slingbox - they may be technically against some law, but the service is bought and paid for, so the content should be enjoyed in whatever mode is most convenient.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Tom Servo said:


> You can't compare cable to satellite in this instance because cable companies only serve specific areas; you can't take your Charter service to an area in the wilderness where cables haven't been run.
> 
> You could however likely call the cable company and suspend service at one residence while activating at another, if the same company serves both residences.
> 
> ...


I agree but to let someone else use it is another story.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Tom Servo said:


> You can't compare cable to satellite in this instance because cable companies only serve specific areas; you can't take your Charter service to an area in the wilderness where cables haven't been run.
> 
> You could however likely call the cable company and suspend service at one residence while activating at another, if the same company serves both residences.


And with DIRECTV you can do likewise. And my understanding is that so long as you don't have service being used at both locations simultaneously, you don't even have to call. 

I hope you understand how my original quote was meant, btw. 


Tom Servo said:


> I understand fully the rules against mirroring violations, but don't understand why anyone would get their dander up over moving a single box from one location to another _temporarily_ for the owner's personal enjoyment. It's my box and my subscription, I should be able to enjoy it (for short periods) at alternate locations if such a setup is viable.


It doesn't happen often, yet every once in awhile I run into a conflict between being a moderator and my personal thoughts. What I can say is the Satgo is an example of exactly what you talk about. An ability to take your satellite on the road with you for temporary occasions.


Tom Servo said:


> Another posted alluded to making recordings and bringing them to a different location or using a Slingbox - they may be technically against some law, but the service is bought and paid for, so the content should be enjoyed in whatever mode is most convenient.


Slingbox will become an interesting case. At this point, to project a full HD picture to a remote location is very difficult so the content providers probably don't care--yet. 

Once high performing broadband that supports high enough uplink rates becomes more common, we'll likely see content providers start squawking.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## PrinceBandar (Dec 28, 2007)

dave29 said:


> that is illegal


Ya think?
What about using a slingbox or similar technology to watch TV while you on a trip? At a summer home?

As long as its for your own personal use, it's most definitely not illegal and as far as Im concerned morale.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

PrinceBandar said:


> Ya think?
> What about using a slingbox or similar technology to watch TV while you on a trip? At a summer home?
> 
> As long as its for your own personal use, it's most definitely not illegal and as far as Im concerned morale.


Did you read the op's first post?


----------



## Swheat (Aug 10, 2005)

mxl360 said:


> Hey guys I'm new here. I no longer have directv but I still have the satelite. Once in a while I would borrow my friends receiver to watch some sport games. Does directv know?
> 
> thanks!


It may be legal. It may be that no one is losing money. It may even be that your friend may never get caught loaning his service out.

But it is unethical. You are not paying for service. He is. Cut it any way you like., that's the bottom line. If you were to go over to watch at his location, no problem, but I do not think this is the same.

Just because something can be done without any real consequences, doesn't make it right to do.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Swheat said:


> It may be legal. It may be that no one is losing money. It may even be that your friend may never get caught loaning his service out.
> 
> But it is unethical. You are not paying for service. He is. Cut it any way you like., that's the bottom line. If you were to go over to watch at his location, no problem, but I do not think this is the same.
> 
> Just because something can be done without any real consequences, doesn't make it right to do.


So, according to your ethics, I can't let anyone borrow my cell phone?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> So, according to your ethics, I can't let anyone borrow my cell phone?


As you likely know, that is a completely different business model and therefore doesn't apply at all.


----------



## nofishbob (Jul 26, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> As you likely know, that is a completely different business model and therefore doesn't apply at all.


The similarity is that you are paying for a service for one "user" and by lending it out to your friend there is still only one "user".

Originally, I thought that by the OP saying that he was borrowing his friend's receiver , that it meant that his friend had only one receiver, so the above would make some sense.

If his friend has more than one receiver, then the service can be used at two locations by two "users" while only one is being paid for, so a legitimate theft would occur.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

heisman said:


> So, according to your ethics, I can't let anyone borrow my cell phone?


Perhaps a more valid comparison would be allowing a friend to have a cell phone on your family plan for the small incremental cost (typically $10 or so) as opposed to having their own account. That would be in violation of the cellular companies terms of service, and at least to me, would be much the same legal and ethical situation as allowing a friend to have a receiver from your DirecTV acount for the monthly mirroring cost. Both/either would be improper.

Carl


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

Just form your two homes into a compound/ cult complex, then your the same household and can do it all nice and legal like. Plus you can form a not for profit and stop paying them pesky taxes.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Ok picture this what if i ordered another receiver and give it to my friend and tell him we will split the bill. What do you think will happen to me?


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> As you likely know, that is a completely different business model and therefore doesn't apply at all.


My response was based on an ethical accusation. As soon as you said, "different business model", you were basically agreeing with me. Breaking the rules in someone's business model, has nothing to do with ethics. When I was a kid and showed up late to school or was running at the pool, I broke the rules, but I certainly didn't do anything unethical.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

gfrang said:


> Ok picture this what if i ordered another receiver and give it to my friend and tell him we will split the bill. What do you think will happen to me?


Trying to slice the pie of illegal even finer to see if at some point you can actually achieve "only slightly pregnant"? 

If you both live at the same address, you are legal.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

gfrang said:


> Ok picture this what if i ordered another receiver and give it to my friend and tell him we will split the bill. What do you think will happen to me?


It's against company policy, but the chances of anything happening to you are slim and none, and slim just left the building.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Trying to slice the pie of illegal even finer to see if at some point you can actually achieve "only slightly pregnant"?
> 
> If you both live at the same address, you are legal.
> 
> ...


No i ment he is living 5 miles away but it won't happen because i know better.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> My response was based on an ethical accusation. As soon as you said, "different business model", you were basically agreeing with me. Breaking the rules in someone's business model, have nothing to do with ethics. When I was a kid and showed up late to school or was running at the pool, I broke the rules, but I certainly didn't do anything unethical.


Ok so you think the business models don't come into play in ethics?

And I'm not at all agreeing with you. The business model of cellphones is selling connectivity from one person to another and is not tied to a service location.

The business model for cable and satellite is providing you access to someone else's content at a service location.

Cellphones do not have an applicable DMCA.

The big key is the copyright holders of the content in cable and satellite. You pay for access to that at a location. You don't pay to share that--the laws prevent it unless you negotiate as a carrier yourself.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ok so you think the business models don't come into play in ethics?
> 
> And I'm not at all agreeing with you. The business model of cellphones is selling connectivity from one person to another and is not tied to a service location.
> 
> ...


Almost none of the responses in this thread have anything to do with the OPs original question. Why do people need to preach about ethics or discuss legalities at every opportunity? Just respond to the question or move on. With 57 years on this planet I have found that those who speak the loudest about honesty are the ones to be trusted the least.


----------



## Swheat (Aug 10, 2005)

narrod said:


> Almost none of the responses in this thread have anything to do with the OPs original question. Why do people need to preach about ethics or discuss legalities at every opportunity? Just respond to the question or move on. With 57 years on this planet I have found that those who speak the loudest about honesty are the ones to be trusted the least.


Thank you for that. So you are saying that ethics don't really matter in a discussion about about satellite service.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

narrod said:


> Tom Robertson said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so you think the business models don't come into play in ethics?
> ...


I find it interesting you picked upon my post. I don't feel I'm yelling tho I am admittedly responding.

The OP asked a question "...Once in a while I would borrow my friends receiver to watch some sport games. Does directv know?". This question asks if the OP can violate laws and TOS, and to remain on DBSTalk, those aspects must be covered.

The particular post you quoted speaks directly to the violations and why.

[Edit: Tom Robertson - removed a reply that was too harsh a comment.] Shall we return to the topic? :backtotop

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

Swheat said:


> Thank you for that. So you are saying that ethics don't really matter in a discussion about about satellite service.


Ethics matter in all social intercourse. That was not the poster's question. My response (and I shouldn't have quoted Tom's, it was not on point) was simply and observation that people seem to have a need to not only NOT answer the question but to then take it in another direction.


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

gfrang said:


> Well as far as the op's original question goes in his case i would say yes they know
> and why would any body ask a question like that if they were not worried if it was
> at least ok . If not anything else.


How do they know?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Narrod,

As I step back a bit, I realize I was a bit too harsh. Please accept my apologies for being too strong in my reply.

Thank you,
Tom


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

narrod said:


> How do they know?


Because he posted here.


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

gfrang said:


> Because he posted here.


So, they would not know otherwise?


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Narrod,
> 
> As I step back a bit, I realize I was a bit too harsh. Please accept my apologies for being too strong in my reply.
> 
> ...


No problem. I understood your point. I meant to quote the original question and was careless.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

narrod said:


> So, they would not know otherwise?


Only if someone Ratted on them i guess.


----------



## gibson.guitarman (Mar 19, 2007)

Towards the D* Customer agreement, there are 2 areas that disallow loaning of receivers out - under phone connections that your friend would provide accurate location of receivers, and under private viewing - it would not be difficult for a D* laywer to draw the court to agree that "home viewing" does not extend to "another's home viewing". That they don't publicly pursue such occurrences probably reflects their own non-enforcement regarding phone line connections. The most amazing part is the trust that someone places in either their loaning practice not be reported, that the receiver doesn't get connected to the phone line while in another home, the court risks if it is (to enforce the agreement - or out-of-court settlement), or the possiblity of having lots of $$$ show up on their account for ppv or events (maybe even when the receiver is located where there's a baby-sitter, without recourse). The security code is only 4 digits - doesn't take too long to find it if one has a few hours on their hands. It wouldn't seem difficult for D* to send out notices to those whose receivers haven't phoned home in the past several months to connect it to the phone line or return the receiver. Should sharing the costs of premium subscriptions, NFL ST or avoidance of blackouts by exchanging receivers with an out-of-state friend, or other such abuses become more common, I'm sure we'll all have to have our receivers connected to the landline or lose them. I think there's a risk that D* could regard the loaning of receivers out as piracy, since those other homes would otherwise have to pay full price for subscription services, and it would not be difficult for D* to come up with a figure for the damages incurred. They aggressively persued piracy in the past with smart card distributors, so when they go after service sharing accounts, if they start, I wouldn't want to get caught. Just my $.02


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ok so you think the business models don't come into play in ethics?
> 
> And I'm not at all agreeing with you. The business model of cellphones is selling connectivity from one person to another and is not tied to a service location.
> 
> ...


Business models are created to make money. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tom, I'm not really sure what angle you are taking with your comments, but I'm sure you know they are false. I'll just ask you one question, since when is peer to peer file sharing illegal? Because, that is what you are saying the laws prevent, and they don't. Once again, do not confuse the policies and procedures of a company with the law. Two totally different issues.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

heisman said:


> Business models are created to make money. Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Tom, I'm not really sure what angle you are taking with your comments, but I'm sure you know they are false. I'll just ask you one question, since when is peer to peer file sharing illegal? Because, that is what you are saying the laws prevent, and they don't. Once again, do not confuse the policies and procedures of a company with the law. Two totally different issues.


Intriguing thread.

You lost me on peer to peer file sharing though. Or I missed the post that introduced that.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> Intriguing thread.
> 
> You lost me on peer to peer file sharing though. Or I missed the post that introduced that.


Tom was claiming that the DMCA was applicable when allowing a friend to borrow one of your receivers because the content providers' copyrights were violated. My response was that this act he claims is illegal is nothing more than peer to peer file sharing, and as we all know, that is not illegal in the least.


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

heisman said:


> peer to peer file sharing, and as we all know, that is not illegal in the least.


I'm confused. Are you disputing Tom's point, or supporting it with sarcasm?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> Business models are created to make money. Nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> Tom, I'm not really sure what angle you are taking with your comments, but I'm sure you know they are false. I'll just ask you one question, since when is peer to peer file sharing illegal? Because, that is what you are saying the laws prevent, and they don't. Once again, do not confuse the policies and procedures of a company with the law. Two totally different issues.


First off, I never take a stance I know is false without *major *disclaimers: "Playing devil's advocate". And then only for a very short time.

Yes, business models are created to create money--as well as many other reasons, including protecting the rights of the intellectual property or copyright holders. (Another form of protecting value, of course.) 

And laws are created to protect the rights of individuals and their money (among other things.) Is that bad? 

The key that makes most "peer to peer" networking illegal is content, content, content. True peer to peer, which is not geared to particular content types is very legal. But "peer to peer" that really is a DRM bypassing, content sharing engine is illegal.

So the thing missing in your examples, cellphones and peer to peer, is the copyright protected content. Satellite and cable exist solely to legally and in a restricted fashion distribute that protected content. Thus both laws and policies are in place to ensure that protection is not broken.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> So the thing missing in your examples, cellphones and peer to peer, is the copyright protected content. Satellite and cable exist solely to legally and in a restricted fashion distribute that protected content. Thus both laws and policies are in place to ensure that protection is not broken.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Tom, unless I am misunderstanding you, that is totally false. Peer to peer file sharing is totally legal including copyright protected content. So, I'm either misunderstanding you, or you have misinformation. You must have heard of Limewire. No?


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

gfrang said:


> Only if someone Ratted on them i guess.


"Clever" folks who "loan out" a receiver on their account to someone else always gets caught. Not because they aren't connected to the same phone line, but due to human stupidity.

Sooner or later that "loaned out" receiver will lose signal, break down, or do something that causes a call to be placed to DirecTV customer service by an unsuspecting person where the "loaned" receiver is....and then if the CSR is clever and asks for the receiver ID/Smartcard ID they will know what is going on.

This is nothing new. You can do the same thing with cable. One customer gets a fancy cable TV package, a friend gets a bare-bones "lifeline" package just to get cable run into their house. "Fancy package" customer rents an additional box for just the "additional outlet" fee and gives it to "lifeline" subscriber who now gets all the channels. Same scenario...both defrauding the content provider.

Same thing goes for folks defrauding the electric or gas company...they always get caught. Two recent cases here in SE Wisconsin involve someone stealing gas. One doofus ran a bypass and heated his pool for free for 15 years but then bragged about it to his new neighbor who was irked and turned him in. He is currently IN JAIL and has to pay back thousands of dollars.

In another case, a goof ran a bypass to a heater in his garage. Lo and behold, the garage caught fire and the gas company shut off the gas to the house _but the burning gas escaping in the garage just kept on coming and it burned to the ground!_ Then he had legal issues...

If (when) DirecTV catches you pulling this scam, they will probably back bill you for a full second account from when the "loaned" receiver was activated, and maybe damages for violating your subscriber agreement, too. Is it worth it just to save a few bucks?


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

ThomasM said:


> In another case, a goof ran a bypass to a heater in his garage. Lo and behold, the garage caught fire and the gas company shut off the gas to the house _but the burning gas escaping in the garage just kept on coming and it burned to the ground!_ Then he had legal issues...


I'd like to nominate ^ for the Darwin award.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> Tom, unless I am misunderstanding you, that is totally false. Peer to peer file sharing is totally legal including copyright protected content. So, I'm either misunderstanding you, or you have misinformation. You must have heard of Limewire. No?


Yes, I have heard of Limewire. I bet you might even remember Napster, shutdown by court order...

Courts are still arguing the legality. Eventually the RIAA will find the right way to convince the courts that peer to peer sharing of copyrighted content is illegal. (Which it really is. Please don't insult us and try to claim that making 100's of copies of an album electronically is legal.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Yes, I have heard of Limewire. I bet you might even remember Napster, shutdown by court order...
> 
> Courts are still arguing the legality. Eventually the RIAA will find the right way to convince the courts that peer to peer sharing of copyrighted content is illegal. (Which it really is. Please don't insult us and try to claim that making 100's of copies of an album electronically is legal.)
> 
> ...


Napster was not peer to peer, which is why it was shut down, and subsequently reformatted as a pay site. The courts are not arguing legality anymore. The EFF has won the good fight. The last case was in 2005 and MGM got it handed to them by Morpheus. Once that precedence was set, it was game over. Letting a friend borrow a dvd or cd is no different than peer to peer file sharing. I can make a trillion copies of a dvd that I purchased and give it to a trillion of my friends, and the law agrees with me.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> Napster was not peer to peer, which is why it was shut down, and subsequently reformatted as a pay site. The courts are not arguing legality anymore. The EFF has won the good fight. The last case was in 2005 and MGM got it handed to them by Morpheus. Once that precedence was set, it was game over. Letting a friend borrow a dvd or cd is no different than peer to peer file sharing. I can make a trillion copies of a dvd that I purchased and give it to a trillion of my friends, and the law agrees with me.


Napster was centralized peer to peer, but is considered peer to peer.

The last "cases" were started last month and are still active. And the case you cite had a round 2... more recently than 2005.

Basically the peer to peer network's can not be tried for there part. But the individuals who put up and _share _copyrighted materials can be--unless the sharing scheme includes payments to the original artists; which is being worked on.

So you think it is ethical, legal, and moral to make unlimited copies of someone else's work for which they are normally compensated and earn a living? Fortunately the EU, WIPO, and other's think you are very wrong. Artists deserve to be fairly compensated for their work and their intellectual property.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV (satellite OR cable... )

There is nothing illegal about the technologies that support peer to peer file sharing. Nor is it illegal to use peer to peer file sharing to transmit data.

I can't for a moment imagine that it is NOT illegal to peer to peer file-share copyrighted content that you purchased with other individuals without the express written consent of the copyright holder.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

crashHD said:


> I'd like to nominate ^ for the Darwin award.


Unfortunately I think you need to perish as a result of your idiocy in order to qualify for a Darwin award.

Correction - you need to die or remove yourself from the gene pool by no longer being capable of reproducing to qualify...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_award

But... :backtotop


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Napster was centralized peer to peer, but is considered peer to peer.
> 
> The last "cases" were started last month and are still active. And the case you cite had a round 2... more recently than 2005.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the entertainment industry is starving. I really feel sorry for them. Thanks for shedding some light. 

I have never been one to judge anyone's ethics or morals. Like one of the previous posters stated, the ones who speak the loudest about those things, I tend to trust the least. Without hesitation, I can say that if I purchase a product, then I can most certainly share that product with whomever I choose. Furthermore, I totally agree with you that the original sharer of a product should have purchased that product, and not pirated it. I don't condone piracy in any form. Based on your logic, however, should I have to kick my wife and children out of the house if I rent a ppv movie? Where does big corporate greed end?


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> I can't for a moment imagine that it is NOT illegal to peer to peer file-share copyrighted content that you purchased with other individuals without the express written consent of the copyright holder.


Start imagining.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> Yeah, the entertainment industry is starving. I really feel sorry for them. Thanks for shedding some light.
> 
> I have never been one to judge anyone's ethics or morals. Like one of the previous posters stated, the ones who speak the loudest about those things, I tend to trust the least. Without hesitation, I can say that if I purchase a product, then I can most certainly share that product with whomever I choose. Furthermore, I totally agree with you that the original sharer of a product should have purchased that product, and not pirated it. I don't condone piracy in any form. Based on your logic, however, should I have to kick my wife and children out of the house if I rent a ppv movie?  Where does big corporate greed end?


Now you have me completely confused about your stance. How can you not "condone piracy in any form" yet allow thousands of your friends share individual copies of a album without paying for it simply because you've put it on a network for sharing? How is that not piracy?

I'm not saying you can't loan your CD or DVD to _one_ friend (at a time). But peer to peer "sharing" is not loaning a single copy. It is all about letting everyone make their own copies. Maybe not onto a CD or DVD, but just the same, they are simultaneous copies.

And since the artists aren't paid for their work for each copy, that is piracy. Completely. Clearly. Blatantly.

Remember, you don't buy the music or movie. You buy a license. A license that has limitations. Limitations and protections against piracy.

Now, if you want, you could buy the full rights to music or movies and then share that to everyone if you so wish. Those rights typically run in the millions of dollars. Then tell me you support not recouping your costs. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

You may find this interesting.

DirecTV Customer Agreement



> (f) Phone Connections. For optimal performance of your Receiving Equipment, including ordering with your remote control or receiving certain Services, each of your receivers must be directly connected to the same land-based telephone line. If you add Service on additional TVs, you may purchase a separate subscription for each additional TV, or, if all your receivers are continuously connected to the same land-based telephone line, we can "mirror" programming to your additional TVs and charge you only the fee amount described in Section 2. You agree to provide true and accurate information about the location of your receivers. *If we detect that any receiver is not regularly connected to a land-based telephone line, we may investigate and, if it is determined that the receiver is not at the location identified on your account, we may disconnect the receiver or charge you the full programming subscription price for the receiver.*


Anyone feel like paying twice for Premier?


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Thaedron said:


> I can't for a moment imagine that it is NOT illegal to peer to peer file-share copyrighted content that you purchased with other individuals without the express written consent of the copyright holder.





heisman said:


> Start imagining.


By definition, it is illegal to violate copyright law (regardless of the technology used to do so). It may be a civil offense and not a criminal offense. But it is still illegal.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Upstream said:


> By definition, it is illegal to violate copyright law (regardless of the technology used to do so). It may be a civil offense and not a criminal offense. But it is still illegal.


From yesterday:

http://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2008/4/30


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> I'm not saying you can't loan your CD or DVD to _one_ friend (at a time)...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


So, isn't that what the OP basically did in this case?


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Ratara said:


> You may find this interesting.
> 
> DirecTV Customer Agreement
> 
> Anyone feel like paying twice for Premier?


No one disagrees this action is in violation of D*'s policies.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> So, isn't that what the OP basically did in this case?


No. He also allowed the unit to be connected to the active service to watch fresh and copyrighted content live. (And at full resolution, also an issue; tho I do disagree with the content providers who think that sharing HD materials is not fair use.)

At this point I suggest we agree to disagree. While we agree that several of the concepts here violate corporate policies and the Terms of Service, we will likely continue to disagree about what is and is not illegal and now what is piracy.

1) I contend some of the acts described in this thread, namely simultaneous mirroring of one account in two different households and families is illegal as it becomes theft of cable.

2) Intentional copying of copyrighted materials via peer to peer networks is piracy just as if the person made hundreds of physical copies of the original CD/DVD. And is just as illegal. (At some point the courts will sort out the "I didn't know it was illegal" or "the computer did it" as well as the "who is the one doing the illegal copying" issues that they seem to be struggling with today.) Either way, copying copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal, even if the courts can't figure out how to do that justly yet.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

heisman said:


> From yesterday:
> 
> http://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2008/4/30


From that mention, it would appear that the accused got off on a "dog ate my homework" like technicality. IMO you're confusing the issue of whether or not something is legal with technicalities in successful prosecution of said act.

Murder is illegal too, but not every guilty individual is successfully prosecuted. It seems that the arguement you are making is that just because someone isn't successfully prosecuted for an action, then that act was not illegal.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Thaedron said:


> I can't for a moment imagine that it is NOT illegal to peer to peer file-share copyrighted content that you purchased with other individuals without the express written consent of the copyright holder.





heisman said:


> Start imagining.





Upstream said:


> By definition, it is illegal to violate copyright law (regardless of the technology used to do so). It may be a civil offense and not a criminal offense. But it is still illegal.





heisman said:


> From yesterday:
> 
> http://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2008/4/30


My understanding of the judge's ruling was that the RIAA did not show that Howell distributed copyrighted material. The judge did not rule that it is legal to share copyrighted material over peer-to-peer networks. Distributing copyrighted material as prohibited by the copyright law, is still against the law.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_080429Decision


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

heisman said:


> From yesterday:
> 
> http://www.eff.org/press/mentions/2008/4/30


And that's one case, here is another from last fall:



> Brainerd woman loses music download case
> by Joshua Freed, Associated Press
> October 4, 2007
> Duluth, Minn. - (AP) - The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman liable for damages for sharing copyrighted music online.
> ...


----------



## Elephanthead (Feb 3, 2007)

Well back to the original poster, my parents, as insane as it seems, have never deactivated any receivers, even though they are not connected to phone or satelite, and the installers routinely visit them to fix issues they have, they are old, it is just easier to let them pay an extra15 bucks a month, and the installers have never wondered why there are 5 receivers on the account and only 2 receivers or tvs in the house. Some of these receivers don't even have the ability to work any more due to expired access cards and or incompatibility to their small market locals, yet directv has not seen a reason to call them or the installers have not inquired why their are only 2 boxes connected, so I would say the chance of directv finding you out is slim to none, but that does not mean in the future they will not be sending goons to your door to collect your moneys for phantom boxes. As a matter of fact when you upgrade a receiver, at least when they did, they did not even deactivate the one that lighting started on fire. These were owned receivers so they have never asked for them back, but directv seems content to collect five bucks a month forever even if it makes no sense. Do they share that 5 bucks with programmers, or do they keep it all to themselves?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I recall comments from former-Dish subscribers at the TiVo Community Forum who posted that DISH would randomly call customers and ask the customer to read a specific number sent to a DISH receiver. DISH apparently did this to verify that the receivers were indeed active and in the account-holder's home. I don't know how true this is, but if DIRECTV every tried it, although it may not be worth it, I'm sure it would snag a few people.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> I recall comments from former-Dish subscribers at the TiVo Community Forum who posted that DISH would randomly call customers and ask the customer to read a specific number sent to a DISH receiver. DISH apparently did this to verify that the receivers were indeed active and in the account-holder's home. I don't know how true this is, but if DIRECTV every tried it, although it may not be worth it, I'm sure it would snag a few people.


We've seen those same comments in the Dish forums here (tho I haven't seen any lately). Unfortunately, the Dish people were apparently rather abusive in my mind; if you happened to be on vacation that week, you could be turned off for instance. Ouch!

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> At this point I suggest we agree to disagree....
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


On to Roe v. Wade?


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

heisman said:


> On to Roe v. Wade?


Row vs wade? What is that, two options to get across a stream?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> On to Roe v. Wade?


Not until it is a made for satellite movie.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Even if it weren't illegal--and I'm confident it is--making trillions of copies of a DVD or a CD to share with trillions of your friends deprives the artists of the fruits of their labor and is theft, plain and simple.

It's no different than stealing a car from the dealer's lot, or stealing groceries or clothes from the store.

Unfortunately, the internet and electronic technology have created a large group of people who do not respect other's labor and think everything is free and can be shared if it's easy to rip it off.

The same argument would allow me to buy a copy of Windows--no, bad example, nobody likes Microsoft--buy a copy of Leopard and set about copying it for distribution to others for free. Is that OK?

Let's make a test case: those who think it's OK, please do it, and then report yourselves to your local DA or US attorney. Should be fun.


----------



## Lyle Thorogood (Jun 27, 2004)

Ratara said:


> You may find this interesting.
> 
> DirecTV Customer Agreement
> 
> Anyone feel like paying twice for Premier?


Mine have never, ever been connected to a phone line... 15 years and counting. If it ever becomes a requirement I will send everything back.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Lyle Thorogood said:


> Mine have never, ever been connected to a phone line... 15 years and counting. If it ever becomes a requirement I will send everything back.


Because then DirecTV will know you're violating TOS in Mexico?


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

jahgreen said:


> Let's make a test case: those who think it's OK, please do it, and then report yourselves to your local DA or US attorney. Should be fun.


Possibly one of the funniest things I have ever read. Hmmm, let's see, Tony Rezko's shenanigans or heisman letting his friends borrow dvd's. :lol:


----------



## admiral39 (Nov 7, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> You're right - some receivers may function differently after powering-up without sat signals detected. In the case of the HR20/21, it's only for short period (unknown how long) that you can watch without satellite signals.


I don't know. We have our account on hold while our house is being built and we're staying with my in-laws who have (gasp, cough) cable. Anyway, we've been on hold for 2 months now and we are still able to watch things we recorded before I disconnected my HR20 from the Sat dish.

I have had to reboot the receiver a couple of times because something would freeze, etc., but it always comes back to life and we are still able to watch our recorded programs. The one thing about resetting it though is it takes FOREVER for the thing to boot back up while it searches for a sat signal. Other than that, we at least are keeping the kids happy with their recorded shows


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

admiral39 said:


> I don't know. We have our account on hold while our house is being built and we're staying with my in-laws who have (gasp, cough) cable. Anyway, we've been on hold for 2 months now and we are still able to watch things we recorded before I disconnected my HR20 from the Sat dish.
> 
> I have had to reboot the receiver a couple of times because something would freeze, etc., but it always comes back to life and we are still able to watch our recorded programs. The one thing about resetting it though is it takes FOREVER for the thing to boot back up while it searches for a sat signal. Other than that, we at least are keeping the kids happy with their recorded shows


Well that's good news, Admiral! I don't think I've ever read of anyone here using a disconnected HR20 to playback recordings in the manner you describe. :up:


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Well that's good news, Admiral! I don't think I've ever read of anyone here using a disconnected HR20 to playback recordings in the manner you describe. :up:


I think I remember awhile back seeing release notes that will let the machine boot up even if not sat signal. When I first got mine it would stop there if not hooked up but since a few months ago maybe more it will boot and you can get to list.


----------



## Incog-Neato (Apr 21, 2006)

Very true, especially if you have 4 or 5 receivers. They also will send you an letter stating you must call them on or before such and such a date when they make you go to each box and they ask for info then send an update request. If you don't call by their specified date they shut you down until you call.


Drew2k said:


> I recall comments from former-Dish subscribers at the TiVo Community Forum who posted that DISH would randomly call customers and ask the customer to read a specific number sent to a DISH receiver. DISH apparently did this to verify that the receivers were indeed active and in the account-holder's home. I don't know how true this is, but if DIRECTV every tried it, although it may not be worth it, I'm sure it would snag a few people.


----------



## MIMOTech (Sep 11, 2006)

Newer DTV receivers will look at what sat transponders can be received and if the local spot beam transponders are seen and compared with what it saw last time it was on it will ask you to call DTV if they do not match what is in your package. Old DTV receivers that have not been updated with new software in a long time and are off the radar for updates generally will boot up OK if out of market. New receivers will not work out of your local market that you are signed up for.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

MIMOTech said:


> Newer DTV receivers will look at what sat transponders can be received and if the local spot beam transponders are seen and compared with what it saw last time it was on it will ask you to call DTV if they do not match what is in your package. Old DTV receivers that have not been updated with new software in a long time and are off the radar for updates generally will boot up OK if out of market. New receivers will not work out of your local market that you are signed up for.


Sorry, I call "Shenanigans"! What is the source of this information?


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

Elephanthead said:


> Well back to the original poster, my parents, as insane as it seems, have never deactivated any receivers, even though they are not connected to phone or satelite, and the installers routinely visit them to fix issues they have, they are old, it is just easier to let them pay an extra15 bucks a month,


I know DTV phone CSR's can be a nuisance, but is avoiding having to make a phone call worth $180/year? Help your folks out man, make the call for them.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jwd45244 said:


> Sorry, I call "Shenanigans"! What is the source of this information?


While I haven't seen that described anywhere... nor do I know if something like that was in development... It would definently be one way to stop "moving".

Especially since they are adjusting their system to account for the fact that their customer may not have a land-line phone.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jwd45244 said:


> MIMOTech said:
> 
> 
> > Newer DTV receivers will look at what sat transponders can be received and if the local spot beam transponders are seen and compared with what it saw last time it was on it will ask you to call DTV if they do not match what is in your package. Old DTV receivers that have not been updated with new software in a long time and are off the radar for updates generally will boot up OK if out of market. New receivers will not work out of your local market that you are signed up for.
> ...


I have heard of such a concept in the general, tho it did not have the detail of "calling DIRECTV". It has been a long time since I've heard anything about this; it was deemed a rumor at the time but in the past two plus years, many of that source's other "impossible to believe" rumors have come to pass (or are about to.)

Note, this information did not come to me via any DIRECTV contact and I have absolutely no information that says it is in development or if it might have been shelved for the time being.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Well i just hooked up the receiver in the bedroom to the phone line,now both dvr and receiver check out ok. I just have a feeling it wouldn't be a bad idea now.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

heisman said:


> Possibly one of the funniest things I have ever read. Hmmm, let's see, Tony Rezko's shenanigans or heisman letting his friends borrow dvd's. :lol:


I wasn't commenting on your loaning a DVD. I was talking about your distributing trillions of copies.


----------



## d max82 (May 23, 2007)

MIMOTech said:


> Newer DTV receivers will look at what sat transponders can be received and if the local spot beam transponders are seen and compared with what it saw last time it was on it will ask you to call DTV if they do not match what is in your package. Old DTV receivers that have not been updated with new software in a long time and are off the radar for updates generally will boot up OK if out of market. New receivers will not work out of your local market that you are signed up for.


While this would stop peole with different recievers across the country, I'd bet that the majority of people "sharing" packages are a bunch of buddies in the same town town, defeating this protection scheme.


----------



## crashHD (Mar 1, 2008)

Thaedron said:


> Unfortunately I think you need to perish as a result of your idiocy in order to qualify for a Darwin award.
> 
> Correction - you need to die or remove yourself from the gene pool by no longer being capable of reproducing to qualify...
> 
> ...


Very well...if we must nitpick, then I wish to nominate said individual for a Darwin award honorable mention.


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

Juppers said:


> It isn't illegal, but it is a breach of contract for your friend. There is no jail time involved, and it doesn't increase the costs to everyone else.


Yeah really. Jail time too. Why not punishable by death?


----------



## kycubsfan (Sep 1, 2007)

Elephanthead said:


> Well back to the original poster, my parents, as insane as it seems, have never deactivated any receivers, even though they are not connected to phone or satelite, and the installers routinely visit them to fix issues they have, they are old, it is just easier to let them pay an extra15 bucks a month, and the installers have never wondered why there are 5 receivers on the account and only 2 receivers or tvs in the house. Some of these receivers don't even have the ability to work any more due to expired access cards and or incompatibility to their small market locals, yet directv has not seen a reason to call them or the installers have not inquired why their are only 2 boxes connected, so I would say the chance of directv finding you out is slim to none, but that does not mean in the future they will not be sending goons to your door to collect your moneys for phantom boxes. As a matter of fact when you upgrade a receiver, at least when they did, they did not even deactivate the one that lighting started on fire. These were owned receivers so they have never asked for them back, but directv seems content to collect five bucks a month forever even if it makes no sense. Do they share that 5 bucks with programmers, or do they keep it all to themselves?


Why don't you take care of this and help save your parents some money?


----------



## djwww98 (Jan 12, 2006)

Interesting thread.
Here's my situation. I called D* to ask about starting an account at my work but billed to me at my home. They wouldn't do it. Can't use my work address for billing because it is a government installation and can't have another seperate account billed to my home. Also, they wouldn't install. I tried to do it legit, but they wouldn't cooperate. So, I installed it myself and added another reciever to my home account. (The one at work is not hooked to a phone line). I can only watch one at a time, whether that one that I am watching is in my living room, my bedroom, or my place of employment. And they're getting 5 bucks more a month out of me. So am I evil?


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

No you are not evil. Even though some on here will think you are cheating DirectV. But you tried to make it right and the unknowledable CSR's at DirectV are once again showing there lack of knowledge or there lack of caring to help a P A Y I N G C U S T O R M E R do the right thing. This being the case DirectV would be the all uncaring and evil one in your case.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

djwww98 said:


> Interesting thread.
> Here's my situation. I called D* to ask about starting an account at my work but billed to me at my home. They wouldn't do it. Can't use my work address for billing because it is a *government installation* and can't have another seperate account billed to my home. Also, they wouldn't install. I tried to do it legit, but they wouldn't cooperate. So, I installed it myself and added another reciever to my home account. (The one at work is not hooked to a phone line). I can only watch one at a time, whether that one that I am watching is in my living room, my bedroom, or my place of employment. And they're getting 5 bucks more a month out of me. So am I evil?


Of course you're evil, you work for the government.

:guck:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Dave said:


> No you are not evil. Even though some on here will think you are cheating DirectV. But you tried to make it right and the unknowledable CSR's at DirectV are once again showing there lack of knowledge or there lack of caring to help a P A Y I N G C U S T O R M E R do the right thing. This being the case DirectV would be the all uncaring and evil one in your case.


I gotta agree with Dave. You followed the rules, you did the right thing, you tried your best. They screwed up so they miss out.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## 66stang351 (Aug 10, 2006)

djwww98 said:


> Interesting thread.
> Here's my situation. I called D* to ask about starting an account at my work but billed to me at my home. They wouldn't do it. Can't use my work address for billing because it is a government installation and can't have another seperate account billed to my home. Also, they wouldn't install. I tried to do it legit, but they wouldn't cooperate. So, I installed it myself and added another reciever to my home account. (The one at work is not hooked to a phone line). I can only watch one at a time, whether that one that I am watching is in my living room, my bedroom, or my place of employment. And they're getting 5 bucks more a month out of me. So am I evil?


I have DIRECTV installed at a different location to my billing address. I didn't call them to set this up, I went into my online account and changed the billing address after getting service. The billing address I use is my parents address. They have DIRECTV as well, so there are 2 accounts billed to the same address. Different names on the accounts though.


----------



## Fuzzybear (Dec 29, 2006)

In response to the OP......IMO it is illegal but what the hell, things they don't know won't hurt them. I have done it in the past and I will probably do it in the future. When my son went to college @ Northwestern I set up an old dual LNB dish on their house and gave them my old Ultimate TV receiver.........the rest is history.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

reminds me of an issue I had. I have an outbuilding here at my location I like to sometimes watch tv in. due to various things running cable from existing dish would be impractical.
I asked about putting a dish on that building for the 1 receiver and was given all sorts of crap. first the said that would be 2 separate installation locations so it would be 2 separate bills. then they said on a non-mdu location they can't setup multiple billings for 1 location.
what a bunch of crap.
bought a $30 dish myself, threw it on side of building, carried spare receiver out and watched it when I want. receiver is activated and paid for monthly.


----------



## Lyle Thorogood (Jun 27, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> Because then DirecTV will know you're violating TOS in Mexico?


I am sure they know... 15 years... Come on. 001-880-DirecTV. Not to mention over 200 residents in my condo development that pay their bill and enjoy the viewing experience as well.


----------



## djwww98 (Jan 12, 2006)

Tom Servo said:


> Of course you're evil, you work for the government.
> 
> :guck:


 I know... that's a whole different kind of evil.


----------

