Bypassing the DRM might be legal, but if you’re openly advertising piracy, you lose plausible deniability and make it very easy to get your device blocked from sale.
And they scammed people by telling them they were actually paying sling/whoever.
I know what sub I’m in, and while I don’t pirate anything, I’m not going to argue the ethics at all.
But according to the article, they were literally advertising to customers that they were sling and selling them devices preloaded to look like they were sling. Again, I’m not here to argue the merits of piracy generally. I follow the sub without being a pirate because many of the legal/technical issues around piracy affect anyone who wants to own their media and browse the internet with some level of privacy. But distributors of any of that content aren’t credible if they’re lying to the end users. Lying to tell people you’re actually the real service isn’t cool.
They said “Authorized Retailer,” not that they were the actual company. They were truly selling the service, regardless of legalese around being authoritized, I’d think it perfectly okay for them to say you can pay X to get Y and as long as you receive Y (in this case ability to watch cable).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Doesn’t seem like “‘pirate’” needs the quotes.
Bypassing the DRM might be legal, but if you’re openly advertising piracy, you lose plausible deniability and make it very easy to get your device blocked from sale.
And they scammed people by telling them they were actually paying sling/whoever.
It does if it’s a quote, which is what quotes in news article titles usually are
Fuck Dish & Sling, all I can say.
I know what sub I’m in, and while I don’t pirate anything, I’m not going to argue the ethics at all.
But according to the article, they were literally advertising to customers that they were sling and selling them devices preloaded to look like they were sling. Again, I’m not here to argue the merits of piracy generally. I follow the sub without being a pirate because many of the legal/technical issues around piracy affect anyone who wants to own their media and browse the internet with some level of privacy. But distributors of any of that content aren’t credible if they’re lying to the end users. Lying to tell people you’re actually the real service isn’t cool.
They said “Authorized Retailer,” not that they were the actual company. They were truly selling the service, regardless of legalese around being authoritized, I’d think it perfectly okay for them to say you can pay X to get Y and as long as you receive Y (in this case ability to watch cable).
Boo! They should be expending the money on adding more channels instead