Udo Richter wrote: > Clemens Kirchgatterer wrote: > >>using a sc does not mean he does not pay for a subscription. >> >>i would be more careful, blaming somebody for cheating. > > > Paying for a subscription does not mean he can legally use SC. > Can't wait the day when it's illegal to eat and drink with something else than platinum or diamond-cut dishes, although we pay for WHAT we're eating with them. It would be "bypassing the profit of the platinum-and-diamond-cut dishes monopolists". Just forget about things like Live 8, feed the poor lawyers and bosses... I agree with anyone stating that pay-TV shouldn't be stolen by not paying the *subscription*, or sharing music or movies originating from original CDs or DVDs is illegal, but I hate what industry and politics is doing to us (look at copy protected CDs, DVDs, HDCP, future HDTV on home-brewed receivers like VDR etc.). But maybe we deserve no different, standing tall has been long forgotten as we continue to buy their crippled CDs, DVDs, so-called "HD-ready" ridiculous TV Sets which make us "upgrade" everything even if it's still working well. They even managed to make us believe we feel good if we religiously respect such laws they actually just punch our teeth with (like declaring illegal to use something we payed for, if we're not using their expensive tools, it's fancy called "circumvention of a protection system", regardless of the use). The whole thing stinks. They shouldn't punish the actual bypassing of copy or content protection systems, but the use of the bypassing, I mean, if you bypass the protection system of material you payed for only for watching and NOT giving it away to others not even in a non-profit way, then what can be illegal in that? Sorry, I don't like mondays @work... Lucian
