old black module board for c band receiver

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

The courts had to define the rights of the copyright holders and
intellectual property rights and make other laws,because left to themselves
"some" people just can't and won't conduct themselves honestly and respect
the rights of others!

Like I said,selfishness is at the root of it.

"wolf2" <wilfj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zMb_d.707883$6l.153653@pd7tw2no...
> I'm shocked, shocked, there's gambling going on here !! Round up the usual
> suspects.....Claude Raines.
> It's amazing how a simple statement/question can stimulate the mind. ( to
> a
> few I suggest you just read the Post)
> As it appears to some that I've been convicted, I'll spare the details of
> the Old Black Board but they are for sale on EBAY if that means any
> thing...... I don't think so.
> I've had a bud since I had a Clark Belt to hold up my trousers and there
> was
> no such thing as a subscription to anything. So what? Well I have and will
> continue to subscribe to C Band as long as I can maintain the old dish and
> there is adequate programming. I suspect this holds for most of the bud
> owners. I will however, reserve my right to move my dish/change hardware
> as
> I see fit and within the Laws governing communications.
> I regret that the Post took us back to the 70/80's when everyone ,
> including
> myself had their definition of the Law. The courts have defined that for
> us
> sometime ago so there's no need to go there again.
> ( oh I almost forgot this all started as I was looking to buy a 4dtv
> receiver on another site.}Amen
>
>
>
> "wolf2" <wilfj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1TsZd.681191$Xk.499704@pd7tw3no...
>> I can get all the video but no audio. Someone said there was/is a fix for
>> the audio, can anyone comment. Thanks
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

Sure it makes sense to support the programmers,because if we steal the
programming,the programmer has to spend more on security,then they have to
recover the extra expense somehow,so up go the subscription prices.

We can also thank the pirates for the flack US dish systems and C band has
taken in Canada.

"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:amaj3197bcaue42q4qb8v5a32p7qg2sft3@4ax.com...
> My sentiments as well.
> Some of us go back when there was no
> Clarke belt, I wonder how Arthur C. fared during the
> tsunami, the last I heard he was still in Sri Lanka.
>
> For what it is worth I have always paid for my subscription,
> not because of any moralising twaddle, but because it makes
> sense to support the programmers, but you are right about
> the old days when it was in the clear, and Yellow Rain was
> still in the future.
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:06:39 GMT, "wolf2" <wilfj@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm shocked, shocked, there's gambling going on here !! Round up the usual
>>suspects.....Claude Raines.
>> It's amazing how a simple statement/question can stimulate the mind. ( to
>> a
>>few I suggest you just read the Post)
>>As it appears to some that I've been convicted, I'll spare the details of
>>the Old Black Board but they are for sale on EBAY if that means any
>>thing...... I don't think so.
>>I've had a bud since I had a Clark Belt to hold up my trousers and there
>>was
>>no such thing as a subscription to anything. So what? Well I have and will
>>continue to subscribe to C Band as long as I can maintain the old dish and
>>there is adequate programming. I suspect this holds for most of the bud
>>owners. I will however, reserve my right to move my dish/change hardware
>>as
>>I see fit and within the Laws governing communications.
>>I regret that the Post took us back to the 70/80's when everyone ,
>>including
>>myself had their definition of the Law. The courts have defined that for
>>us
>>sometime ago so there's no need to go there again.
>> ( oh I almost forgot this all started as I was looking to buy a 4dtv
>>receiver on another site.}Amen
>>
>>
>>
>>"wolf2" <wilfj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1TsZd.681191$Xk.499704@pd7tw3no...
>>> I can get all the video but no audio. Someone said there was/is a fix
>>> for
>>> the audio, can anyone comment. Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

"Valdivar" <rebelleader68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8Hk_d.21590$N8.614954@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Sure it makes sense to support the programmers,because if we steal the
> programming,the programmer has to spend more on security,then they have to
> recover the extra expense somehow,so up go the subscription prices.
>
> We can also thank the pirates for the flack US dish systems and C band has
> taken in Canada.

Actually, at this point it doesn't really matter. You can support or not
support, they
aren't raising their prices because of piracy. If that was true, they would
have
switched from VideoCipher2 long ago. The fact is, you're seeing higher
prices
because the programmer's know that, for the MOST part (not all), the people
left on Cband are the ones who will probably never change, and they can jack
the price to whatever they want. They're milking it for all it's worth until
it
completely dies. Channel for channel, any other system beats out the price
of cband by a long shot. But for those alacarte customers, and those with
tiny
little packages that brag about their low subscription costs, they're going
to
rip every cent out of your pocket that they can. Don't get me wrong, there's
still plenty use for the big dish. But using it as your primary subscription
format,
unless you happen to just watch a couple channels, or just subscribe to
movie
channels, it's getting to the point where people are blinded to how bad it's
getting.
"I only pay $20 a month for my package!" (or $230 a year). Yeah, you also
only
get 24 channels. Let's see, 24 channels for $20, or 60 channels for $30...
HMM!
And let's not get this thread started about signal loss on small dish
systems, either.
Anyone with half a brain and a pair of pliers can get a DBS adapter for
their big
dish and use it to pick up small dish programming, legally. No more rain
fade!

BAH to stubborn old men who can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

==
Bullshit. Do you even know what digital is? It means the signal is EXACTLY the same as
when it left the broadcasters..
==

It does not mean that it is exactly the same as when the original uplinker sent it.
The signal from the original uplinker or source can be received and rebroadcast in
other formats or can be (and often is) compressed at the expense of video quality.




"dvb guy" <znmiller@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:YFw_d.22377$yp.10509@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
| Man, that got me riled up enough that, in the tradition
| of newsgroup flamewars, I must continue.
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

And exactly what is he doing in OO that even resembles stealing?


"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:guqh31d1kgd4oj5r3dn56ikinc07ic1som@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:24:35 -0500, Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com>
| wrote:
|
| >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:26:59 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:

|
| Exactly, that is why it is so phoney for validar, who is pretty
| active in the OO section, to moralise about stealing.
| It's a bit like Identity Theft, you still have your Identity
| even if someone is posing as you, and using your personal information
| to get goods and services without paying for them.
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

You are kidding. right?
Why do they call it OO?
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:43:06 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:

>And exactly what is he doing in OO that even resembles stealing?
>
>
>"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:guqh31d1kgd4oj5r3dn56ikinc07ic1som@4ax.com...
>| On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:24:35 -0500, Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:26:59 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>|
>| Exactly, that is why it is so phoney for validar, who is pretty
>| active in the OO section, to moralise about stealing.
>| It's a bit like Identity Theft, you still have your Identity
>| even if someone is posing as you, and using your personal information
>| to get goods and services without paying for them.
>|
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:07:16 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You are kidding. right?
>Why do they call it OO?

To keep that data in a trusted circle, so it doesn't get in the wrong
hands. It is not stealing, becasue of the authorisation status of the
channels are such the receiver can get them. Defeating security is
forbidden on that forum.

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:43:06 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:
>
>>And exactly what is he doing in OO that even resembles stealing?
>>
>>
>>"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:guqh31d1kgd4oj5r3dn56ikinc07ic1som@4ax.com...
>>| On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:24:35 -0500, Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com>
>>| wrote:
>>|
>>| >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:26:59 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>|
>>| Exactly, that is why it is so phoney for validar, who is pretty
>>| active in the OO section, to moralise about stealing.
>>| It's a bit like Identity Theft, you still have your Identity
>>| even if someone is posing as you, and using your personal information
>>| to get goods and services without paying for them.
>>|
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:02:24 -0500, Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:07:16 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You are kidding. right?
>>Why do they call it OO?
>
>To keep that data in a trusted circle, so it doesn't get in the wrong
>hands. It is not stealing, becasue of the authorisation status of the
>channels are such the receiver can get them. Defeating security is
>forbidden on that forum.
>
As Shakespeare wrote 'That which we call a rose by any other
name would smell just as sweet'

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

They call it Owners Only

You did not answer my question, so here it goes again.

And exactly what is he doing in OO that even resembles stealing?

"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news3vl3198bmo516p0k4d45eeofk5mfv0u3t@4ax.com...
| You are kidding. right?
| Why do they call it OO?
| On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:43:06 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:
|
| >And exactly what is he doing in OO that even resembles stealing?
| >
| >
| >"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:guqh31d1kgd4oj5r3dn56ikinc07ic1som@4ax.com...
| >| On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:24:35 -0500, Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com>
| >| wrote:
| >|
| >| >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:26:59 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >
| >|
| >| Exactly, that is why it is so phoney for validar, who is pretty
| >| active in the OO section, to moralise about stealing.
| >| It's a bit like Identity Theft, you still have your Identity
| >| even if someone is posing as you, and using your personal information
| >| to get goods and services without paying for them.
| >|
| >
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:35:10 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:

>They call it Owners Only
>
>You did not answer my question, so here it goes again.
>
>And exactly what is he doing in OO that even resembles stealing?
>
Are you sure you want to discuss that tpoic in an
Open Forum?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

Do you want to answer my question?

It has been asked twice and you still have not answered it.

"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4j1m311b6nae03g561s1o2gt4edc01fng6@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:35:10 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:
|
| >They call it Owners Only
| >
| >You did not answer my question, so here it goes again.
| >
| >And exactly what is he doing in OO that even resembles stealing?
| >
| Are you sure you want to discuss that tpoic in an
| Open Forum?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:05:30 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:

>Do you want to answer my question?
>
>It has been asked twice and you still have not answered it.
>
If Valdivar, or anyone else uses the overlay function of
the 4dtv to receive programming that is decoded by the
4dtv, but other users have to pay a subscription fee to
watch, what do you call it?
Gary says the function of the OO's section is to ensure
the information does'nt get into the wrong hands.
What are the wrong hands if it is a legitimate use
of the signal?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The overlay will not give you access to channels that are not encrypted unless your
receiver has a subscription to them. The overlay does not bypass or break encryption.

Your argument is pure bullshit based on erroneous self serving assumptions. You have
jumped to conclusions and have landed flat on your ass.

Discussion of signal theft is not allowed in those forums even in the restricted area.



"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bham31t2nnogcc7fddhqjlp68t9lhfaiqk@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:05:30 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:
|
| >Do you want to answer my question?
| >
| >It has been asked twice and you still have not answered it.
| >
| If Valdivar, or anyone else uses the overlay function of
| the 4dtv to receive programming that is decoded by the
| 4dtv, but other users have to pay a subscription fee to
| watch, what do you call it?
| Gary says the function of the OO's section is to ensure
| the information does'nt get into the wrong hands.
| What are the wrong hands if it is a legitimate use
| of the signal?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

You are usually courteous in your replies so maybe we have
touched a nerve here.
So why all the moaning and groaning that went on when
the so called 'Presidential' channels reverted to encryption.
Why, if there is nothing to hide (receiving signals the
originators don't want you receive) is there even such a
group as the OOs?
You still did not address the question that there are channels
the 4dtv will receive via overlay that others have to pay a
subscription fee to receive.
I have had too much good advice from you in the past
so will ignore the 'self serving' remarks, not worthy
of you.


On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:49:58 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:

>You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>The overlay will not give you access to channels that are not encrypted unless your
>receiver has a subscription to them. The overlay does not bypass or break encryption.
>
>Your argument is pure bullshit based on erroneous self serving assumptions. You have
>jumped to conclusions and have landed flat on your ass.
>
>Discussion of signal theft is not allowed in those forums even in the restricted area.
>
>
>
>"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bham31t2nnogcc7fddhqjlp68t9lhfaiqk@4ax.com...
>| On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:05:30 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:
>|
>| >Do you want to answer my question?
>| >
>| >It has been asked twice and you still have not answered it.
>| >
>| If Valdivar, or anyone else uses the overlay function of
>| the 4dtv to receive programming that is decoded by the
>| 4dtv, but other users have to pay a subscription fee to
>| watch, what do you call it?
>| Gary says the function of the OO's section is to ensure
>| the information does'nt get into the wrong hands.
>| What are the wrong hands if it is a legitimate use
>| of the signal?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:13:05 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:02:24 -0500, Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:07:16 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You are kidding. right?
>>>Why do they call it OO?
>>
>>To keep that data in a trusted circle, so it doesn't get in the wrong
>>hands. It is not stealing, becasue of the authorisation status of the
>>channels are such the receiver can get them. Defeating security is
>>forbidden on that forum.
>>
>As Shakespeare wrote 'That which we call a rose by any other
>name would smell just as sweet'

It isn't defeating the security, it is fooling the receiver to tune
channels that aren't mapped, whose authorisation status is open.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:38:53 -0500, Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:13:05 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:02:24 -0500, Gary J Tait <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:07:16 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are kidding. right?
>>>>Why do they call it OO?
>>>
>>>To keep that data in a trusted circle, so it doesn't get in the wrong
>>>hands. It is not stealing, becasue of the authorisation status of the
>>>channels are such the receiver can get them. Defeating security is
>>>forbidden on that forum.
>>>
>>As Shakespeare wrote 'That which we call a rose by any other
>>name would smell just as sweet'
>
>It isn't defeating the security, it is fooling the receiver to tune
>channels that aren't mapped, whose authorisation status is open.
Fair enough. But who are the 'wrong hands' that this
information should not be accessed?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

==
You still did not address the question that there are channels
the 4dtv will receive via overlay that others have to pay a
subscription fee to receive.
===

I thought that I did. What do you mean by others?.

The reason that your remarks struck a nerve is that I am one of the moderators of that
forum. When you claim that OO is used for discussion of signal piracy you also are
saying that I am housing a den of thieves.

That forum was created by a person that (at the time) was a manager in the 4DTV
section of GI. Some GI/Mot employees also still have access to that area. Discussion
of signal theft absolutely is not tolerated there.

There is a big difference between the uplinkers knowing that signals are received and
violation of encryption. If a few uplinkers for some reason are naive enough not to
encrypt their signals then good for us. Reception of unencrypted signals is legal,
..... it is not theft. It would be foolish to tell them we can receive their channels.


"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6lfm31l0gfcql183l8vqovh5p7688j5bp2@4ax.com...
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:48:32 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:

>==
>You still did not address the question that there are channels
>the 4dtv will receive via overlay that others have to pay a
>subscription fee to receive.
>===
>
>I thought that I did. What do you mean by others?.
The LSD people for some of them.
>
>The reason that your remarks struck a nerve is that I am one of the moderators of that
>forum.
IR>>I know that.

DRL>n you claim that OO is used for discussion of signal piracy you also are
>saying that I am housing a den of thieves.

Not a den of thieves but people like Valdivar who moralise about
someone using a chipped board, but he takes advantage of the
information on the OO forum to receive signals not intended for
his use. I do the same but also know the rules of the game.

>
>That forum was created by a person that (at the time) was a manager in the 4DTV
>section of GI. Some GI/Mot employees also still have access to that area. Discussion
>of signal theft absolutely is not tolerated there.
>
>There is a big difference between the uplinkers knowing that signals are received and
>violation of encryption. If a few uplinkers for some reason are naive enough not to
>encrypt their signals then good for us. Reception of unencrypted signals is legal,
>.... it is not theft. It would be foolish to tell them we can receive their channels.
>
Ah! The nuances of the English language. Anyway good luck and
thanks for the trojan work you have done for us all over the years.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:41:20 -0800, irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Not a den of thieves but people like Valdivar who moralise about
>someone using a chipped board, but he takes advantage of the
>information on the OO forum to receive signals not intended for
>his use. I do the same but also know the rules of the gam

That is beside the point. The fact is no security is being broken in
the access of those channels, unlike when someone uses a chipped black
board, modified FTA receiver, AVR card or whatever.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.4dtv (More info?)

I'm still shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on here...I have no
idea what everyone is talking about, 00 sounds like something from star
wars, but the next POST will be by Prince Charles who will clarify a real
screw up.
"wolf2" <wilfj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1TsZd.681191$Xk.499704@pd7tw3no...
> I can get all the video but no audio. Someone said there was/is a fix for
> the audio, can anyone comment. Thanks
>
>