Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version VT3.4 8/17/84; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.tv,net.legal Subject: Re: Satellite dish cleanup : Technical Practicalities Message-ID: <397@vortex.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Aug-84 21:00:44 EDT Article-I.D.: vortex.397 Posted: Mon Aug 27 21:00:44 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 20:35:57 EDT References: <787@hou3c.uucp> Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 27 Since the government has already seen fit to declare that transmissions can be protected by legal remedies, the issue seems somewhat academic. The old 1934 Communications Act is only the starting point for current communications law--to understand the rest you must look at a multitude of (recent) legislation and court cases. If you understand that it is illegal but feel that you want to go ahead and break the law anyway, that's one thing. But there is little supporting evidence to claim that it's NOT illegal--given the current direction of court decisions and recently enacted legislation. To the extent that encryption systems degrade the final quality of the transmitted picture (and most do, to some extent) what we're doing is forcing the paying customers to put up with inferior quality simply to try "protect" against a bunch of spoilsports who want to get something for nothing. Doesn't seem quite fair, eh? But then the freeloaders have been part of human society since the beginning of time, and that can hardly be expected to change. Why is it that I suspect that the people who rip off the pay tv operations are much the same group that go around ripping off software by copying what isn't theirs? The bottom line is that these people are living under the conception that ownership of something isn't "real" unless you can touch it and can't easily copy it. A surprisingly obsolete attitude from people who are pretty much technically advanced over the mass of the population. --Lauren--