You fraudulently obtained services by deception. It's as simple as that. It doesnt matter that you did it via a third party.
If it had all been legit then you would have been able to arrange your own contract with SKY directly, and you know it too.
You're just hacked off that you've been caught, but it's a fair cop.
It's nice to see people blaming sky for their own criminal activity (which you left a nice paper trail with by conveniently using your credit card).
I'll agree that the whole amalgam that is Murdoch/News corp/NDS has a few skeletons in their closet but having a go at them for going by the book for a change isn't helping your side of the argument.
As to the comment "Murdoch's NDS being sued".
Let me get this straight.. The Murdoch family owns 30% of a company that owns 76% of a company that is being sued. Doesn't really sound like it's his company to me.
You fraudulently obtained services by deception. It's as simple as that. It doesnt matter that you did it via a third party.
If it had all been legit then you would have been able to arrange your own contract with SKY directly, and you know it too.
You're just hacked off that you've been caught, but it's a fair cop.
It's nice to see people blaming sky for their own criminal activity (which you left a nice paper trail with by conveniently using your credit card).
I'll agree that the whole amalgam that is Murdoch/News corp/NDS has a few skeletons in their closet but having a go at them for going by the book for a change isn't helping your side of the argument.
As to the comment "Murdoch's NDS being sued".
Let me get this straight.. The Murdoch family owns 30% of a company that owns 76% of a company that is being sued. Doesn't really sound like it's his company to me.
Yes you're absolutely right, I'm a criminal, I actually watched Lost and the Simpsons on a Sky system outside of the UK. Call the cops.
You're missing the point here big man. The thread is about Sky's (Murdochs) criminality and not mine.
The same question to you then.
HAVE YOU SEEN THE EMAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN INSAT AND SKY THAT WAS POSTED BY JIMMY? YES OR NO?
HAVE YOU SEEN THE EMAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN INSAT AND SKY THAT WAS POSTED BY JIMMY? YES OR NO?
No I haven't, nor would I take much stock in it. Someone posting an alleged email on a public forum with no proof as to it's validity is just begging for moderation.
I'm not surprised that the original poster asked for posts to be removed as he probably was opening himself up to lots of legal implications.
I can post an alleged email stating that you like carnal relations with sheep, but it doesn't make it real or true.
No I haven't, nor would I take much stock in it. Someone posting an alleged email on a public forum with no proof as to it's validity is just begging for moderation.
I'm not surprised that the original poster asked for posts to be removed as he probably was opening himself up to lots of legal implications.
I can post an alleged email stating that you like carnal relations with sheep, but it doesn't make it real or true.
They were genuine emails between Insat and Phillip Davies of Sky security. I wish a had copied them to post again. They were openly discussing accounts in Iceland and France.
You keep burying your head in the sand. That way everybody likes you and you never get in trouble. I guess your popularity on the forum is very important for you.
You're missing the point here big man. The thread is about Sky's (Murdochs) criminality and not mine.
No, you're missing the point "Big man". You've waded into an argument accusing Sky/Murdoch or criminality when a) it's NDS and not Sky or Murdoch, and b) you've added your own experience to the mix when by all accounts they havent done anything illegal to you. If anything it's the other way round.
They were genuine emails between Insat and Phillip Davies of Sky security. I wish a had copied them to post again. They were openly discussing accounts in Iceland and France.
Get a chance to examine the digital signatures did you? I suppose you believe everything you read in the papers too.
If it was removed it was because it was potentially libelous and the poster and DS did not want to open themselves up to legal action.
No, you're missing the point "Big man". You've waded into an argument accusing Sky/Murdoch or criminality when a) it's NDS and not Sky or Murdoch, and b) you've added your own experience to the mix when by all accounts they havent done anything illegal to you. If anything it's the other way round.
Get a chance to examine the digital signatures did you? I suppose you believe everything you read in the papers too.
If it was removed it was because it was potentially libelous and the poster and DS did not want to open themselves up to legal action.
You believe what you want. As I said, burying your head in sand gives you what you want, safety, security and immunity.
I just hope that Insat will have the balls to take Sky to court and then a judge can tell us all if the correspondence between them and Sky are genuine or not.
I just hope that Insat will have the balls to take Sky to court and then a judge can tell us all if the correspondence between them and Sky are genuine or not.
You are a very naive individual.
Just what exactly would Insat be taking Sky to court for?
Just what exactly would Insat be taking Sky to court for?
Nothing i expect... sorry to jump in here but there's an old saying.
"You pays ya money you makes ya choice"
Ben what you did is ''illegal'' in sky's terms and conditions end of story You would be better off taking your card supplier to court.
BUT.... as for highly suspect e-mails saying that he said that you did that they did with a code and a bank account and a bonk on the beach is..... well hear say for want of a better term.
I mean FFS why bother?? Its NDS thats apparently been naughty NOT sky. So the murdochs own some of NDS, they also own Newscorp dont they??? (part of it) Wow! look everyone FOX news is actually being NONE biased! Its releasing news that HAS been CONFIRMED!
Lets sue!..... No no no and no.
If NDS has been naughty they have been naughty. But please dont put things like... ''read so and so's e-mails, its proof!'' Its boll*xs. Anything can be created using the net and portrayed like the 'real' thing.
Remember! dont believe everything you read on the internet.
As for Digital Spy, they've explained several times to you that you should not discuss how they moderate posts - continuing to do so will result in your posts just getting deleted and starting multiple threads discussing the same thing is just an inconvenience for other users.
You're dreaming, you really are. Even if found guilty of such conduct in the UK, they would be fined at best. You don't really think the government, two years at most before an election, would seek to piss Murdoch off to that extent?
Coming from somebody who jumps into every thread to support Murdoch I find that statement very strange. Are you really saying that Murdoch is too big now to be taken on by the government. If so where does that leave us the consumer. More importantly what does that say about the state of democracy in this country. The next thing you know prospective Prime Ministers will have to be vetted by Murdoch to make sure they are not a threat to him. :rolleyes:
Coming from somebody who jumps into every thread to support Murdoch I find that statement very strange. Are you really saying that Murdoch is too big now to be taken on by the government. If so where does that leave us the consumer. More importantly what does that say about the state of democracy in this country. The next thing you know prospective Prime Ministers will have to be vetted by Murdoch to make sure they are not a threat to him. :rolleyes:
Every thread?! yeah, sure. I'm just being a realist, and if you don't realise what a hold the press have over the government, you're really very naive.
I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but it is in breach of Civil Law, not Criminal Law.
The key issue as far as Punters are concerned is breaking Contractual Terms & Conditions.
I don't think that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would consider that anything more sinister is involved.
The Traders, however, are a different kettle of cheese.
The issue surrounding Sky viewing and subscriptions outside the UK ane Ireland is bith a civil matter and criminal.
Copyright law protects the owners of all copyrighted works including the supply of audiovisual broadcasts. It is a criminal and civil offence to reproduce the audiovisual broadcasts outside the licensed territory and without paying for the transmissions.
BSkyB which controlled by the Murdoch contolled News Corp does not have the rights to supply the audiovisual broadcasts outside the UK and Ireland.
If BSkyB has in anyway aided the supply then BSkyB has committed both a breach in the copyright licenses it has with the owners of the audiovisual programmes and has therefore also committed a criminal act as defined in the Copyright Act 1988.
You fraudulently obtained services by deception. It's as simple as that. It doesnt matter that you did it via a third party.
If it had all been legit then you would have been able to arrange your own contract with SKY directly, and you know it too.
You're just hacked off that you've been caught, but it's a fair cop.
It's nice to see people blaming sky for their own criminal activity (which you left a nice paper trail with by conveniently using your credit card).
I'll agree that the whole amalgam that is Murdoch/News corp/NDS has a few skeletons in their closet but having a go at them for going by the book for a change isn't helping your side of the argument.
As to the comment "Murdoch's NDS being sued".
Let me get this straight.. The Murdoch family owns 30% of a company that owns 76% of a company that is being sued. Doesn't really sound like it's his company to me.
The Murdoch family owns and controls 46% of News Corp and with special voting rights has complete control of the News Corp business.
Furthermore News Corp has over 70% of the shares in NDS and has complete control over that business which is being sued for copyright theft, piracy etc.
News Corp owns 38% of BSkyB and with special voting rights and other company stock has effective control over the BSkyB businesses. You don't need to take our word for it its what the OFT found in the ITV share issue and was after BSkyB had submitted details of all the BSkyB shareholders interests.
James Murdoch is a shareholder and company Director in many companies including NDS and BSkyB over the timeline that covers the legal action.
So lets not pretend that Murdoch either through Rupert or James is not being sued.
So lets not pretend that Murdoch either through Rupert or James is not being sued.
They're not.
I run a limited company and it's the company that gets sued, not me. You may claim it's semantics but it's the very heart of limited liability companies.
I'm not going to argue about percentages though, I was only going by figures already quoted in the thread. If you think your figures are the correct one then fine.
You are technically correct. We have spoken to another CA supplier and asked this very question.
'If NDS was banned from supplying and the use of Videoguard was proscibed, could another CA system be downloaded onto the Sky STB's?' We were told that it could be possible.
How would they be able to confirm this if they had not attempted to reverse engineer the Sky Box. A practice that you have claimed is illegal.
I run a limited company and it's the company that gets sued, not me. You may claim it's semantics but it's the very heart of limited liability companies.
I'm not going to argue about percentages though, I was only going by figures already quoted in the thread. If you think your figures are the correct one then fine.
Murdoch's owned and controlled company is being sued. We did not claim that Mr. Murdoch either snr or jnr was being sued but that the company owned and controlled by the Murdoch's is being sued for very serious dishonest actions against another Pay TV operator.
As a company director you will also know that if you and your company commit criminal acts both the company and the directors can be prosecuted and or sued.
Companies without the directors and or management cannot break any laws its people that break the law.
I have never (to my knowledge) said that NDS is innocent. I have only said that it is for the courts to decide.
Of course they are being sued, not prosecututed and this will not cause them to have a criminal conviction.
There is no evidence (other than innuendo) at this point in time to suggest that NDS has been involved in any piracy within the UK so I really don't see how this case will give Ofcom any grounds to restrict the use of NDS CA by SKY.
Can I just ask, why would we be bothered by all this? I can't see why myself, perhaps someone could explain.
I just pay my subscription to Sky and watch the TV. Why should this interest me?
Exactly what I was going to post. I realise it adds little to the argument, but I'm not sure I understand the accusation anyway, and more to the point don't care. The point is I would imagine that's what 99% of the viewing public think the same.
As for the leaglity of watching things abroad. Clearly illegal (awaits 100 'no it isn't' posts). Do I care. No. It's useful to be able to watch the footy abroad.
Can I just ask, why would we be bothered by all this? I can't see why myself, perhaps someone could explain.
I just pay my subscription to Sky and watch the TV. Why should this interest me?
Cos Rapture is annoyed that Sky won't let him have an EPG slot for relatively less than everyone else agrees to pay so he drags the group through the mud repeatedly and at every opportunity to try and make people agree with him.
Personally I think he's trying to win the argument through attrition, with opposing views loosing the will to live.
Cos Rapture is annoyed that Sky won't let him have an EPG slot for relatively less than everyone else agrees to pay so he drags the group through the mud repeatedly and at every opportunity to try and make people agree with him.
Personally I think he's trying to win the argument through attrition, with opposing views loosing the will to live.
Ah, well as I have no desire to watch Rapture whether or not they have an EPG slot I'll tune out now
Comments
You fraudulently obtained services by deception. It's as simple as that. It doesnt matter that you did it via a third party.
If it had all been legit then you would have been able to arrange your own contract with SKY directly, and you know it too.
You're just hacked off that you've been caught, but it's a fair cop.
It's nice to see people blaming sky for their own criminal activity (which you left a nice paper trail with by conveniently using your credit card).
I'll agree that the whole amalgam that is Murdoch/News corp/NDS has a few skeletons in their closet but having a go at them for going by the book for a change isn't helping your side of the argument.
As to the comment "Murdoch's NDS being sued".
Let me get this straight.. The Murdoch family owns 30% of a company that owns 76% of a company that is being sued. Doesn't really sound like it's his company to me.
I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but it is in breach of Civil Law, not Criminal Law.
The key issue as far as Punters are concerned is breaking Contractual Terms & Conditions.
I don't think that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would consider that anything more sinister is involved.
The Traders, however, are a different kettle of cheese.
Oh Yeah must have misread them Apologies Rapture TV.
Yes, my apologies.
Yes you're absolutely right, I'm a criminal, I actually watched Lost and the Simpsons on a Sky system outside of the UK. Call the cops.
You're missing the point here big man. The thread is about Sky's (Murdochs) criminality and not mine.
The same question to you then.
HAVE YOU SEEN THE EMAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN INSAT AND SKY THAT WAS POSTED BY JIMMY? YES OR NO?
No i haven't seen any Emails at all just the Documents on Rapture TV's website.
No I haven't, nor would I take much stock in it. Someone posting an alleged email on a public forum with no proof as to it's validity is just begging for moderation.
I'm not surprised that the original poster asked for posts to be removed as he probably was opening himself up to lots of legal implications.
I can post an alleged email stating that you like carnal relations with sheep, but it doesn't make it real or true.
They were genuine emails between Insat and Phillip Davies of Sky security. I wish a had copied them to post again. They were openly discussing accounts in Iceland and France.
You keep burying your head in the sand. That way everybody likes you and you never get in trouble. I guess your popularity on the forum is very important for you.
No, you're missing the point "Big man". You've waded into an argument accusing Sky/Murdoch or criminality when a) it's NDS and not Sky or Murdoch, and b) you've added your own experience to the mix when by all accounts they havent done anything illegal to you. If anything it's the other way round.
Get a chance to examine the digital signatures did you? I suppose you believe everything you read in the papers too.
If it was removed it was because it was potentially libelous and the poster and DS did not want to open themselves up to legal action.
You believe what you want. As I said, burying your head in sand gives you what you want, safety, security and immunity.
I just hope that Insat will have the balls to take Sky to court and then a judge can tell us all if the correspondence between them and Sky are genuine or not.
You are a very naive individual.
Just what exactly would Insat be taking Sky to court for?
Nothing i expect... sorry to jump in here but there's an old saying.
"You pays ya money you makes ya choice"
Ben what you did is ''illegal'' in sky's terms and conditions end of story You would be better off taking your card supplier to court.
BUT.... as for highly suspect e-mails saying that he said that you did that they did with a code and a bank account and a bonk on the beach is..... well hear say for want of a better term.
I mean FFS why bother?? Its NDS thats apparently been naughty NOT sky. So the murdochs own some of NDS, they also own Newscorp dont they??? (part of it) Wow! look everyone FOX news is actually being NONE biased! Its releasing news that HAS been CONFIRMED!
Lets sue!..... No no no and no.
If NDS has been naughty they have been naughty. But please dont put things like... ''read so and so's e-mails, its proof!'' Its boll*xs. Anything can be created using the net and portrayed like the 'real' thing.
Remember! dont believe everything you read on the internet.
No idea. Let the courts decide.
As for Digital Spy, they've explained several times to you that you should not discuss how they moderate posts - continuing to do so will result in your posts just getting deleted and starting multiple threads discussing the same thing is just an inconvenience for other users.
Coming from somebody who jumps into every thread to support Murdoch I find that statement very strange. Are you really saying that Murdoch is too big now to be taken on by the government. If so where does that leave us the consumer. More importantly what does that say about the state of democracy in this country. The next thing you know prospective Prime Ministers will have to be vetted by Murdoch to make sure they are not a threat to him. :rolleyes:
Every thread?! yeah, sure.
The issue surrounding Sky viewing and subscriptions outside the UK ane Ireland is bith a civil matter and criminal.
Copyright law protects the owners of all copyrighted works including the supply of audiovisual broadcasts. It is a criminal and civil offence to reproduce the audiovisual broadcasts outside the licensed territory and without paying for the transmissions.
BSkyB which controlled by the Murdoch contolled News Corp does not have the rights to supply the audiovisual broadcasts outside the UK and Ireland.
If BSkyB has in anyway aided the supply then BSkyB has committed both a breach in the copyright licenses it has with the owners of the audiovisual programmes and has therefore also committed a criminal act as defined in the Copyright Act 1988.
The Murdoch family owns and controls 46% of News Corp and with special voting rights has complete control of the News Corp business.
Furthermore News Corp has over 70% of the shares in NDS and has complete control over that business which is being sued for copyright theft, piracy etc.
News Corp owns 38% of BSkyB and with special voting rights and other company stock has effective control over the BSkyB businesses. You don't need to take our word for it its what the OFT found in the ITV share issue and was after BSkyB had submitted details of all the BSkyB shareholders interests.
James Murdoch is a shareholder and company Director in many companies including NDS and BSkyB over the timeline that covers the legal action.
So lets not pretend that Murdoch either through Rupert or James is not being sued.
They're not.
I run a limited company and it's the company that gets sued, not me. You may claim it's semantics but it's the very heart of limited liability companies.
I'm not going to argue about percentages though, I was only going by figures already quoted in the thread. If you think your figures are the correct one then fine.
How would they be able to confirm this if they had not attempted to reverse engineer the Sky Box. A practice that you have claimed is illegal.
Murdoch's owned and controlled company is being sued. We did not claim that Mr. Murdoch either snr or jnr was being sued but that the company owned and controlled by the Murdoch's is being sued for very serious dishonest actions against another Pay TV operator.
As a company director you will also know that if you and your company commit criminal acts both the company and the directors can be prosecuted and or sued.
Companies without the directors and or management cannot break any laws its people that break the law.
Of course they are being sued, not prosecututed and this will not cause them to have a criminal conviction.
There is no evidence (other than innuendo) at this point in time to suggest that NDS has been involved in any piracy within the UK so I really don't see how this case will give Ofcom any grounds to restrict the use of NDS CA by SKY.
I just pay my subscription to Sky and watch the TV. Why should this interest me?
Exactly what I was going to post. I realise it adds little to the argument, but I'm not sure I understand the accusation anyway, and more to the point don't care. The point is I would imagine that's what 99% of the viewing public think the same.
As for the leaglity of watching things abroad. Clearly illegal (awaits 100 'no it isn't' posts). Do I care. No. It's useful to be able to watch the footy abroad.
Who or what is Rapture TV anyway?
Cos Rapture is annoyed that Sky won't let him have an EPG slot for relatively less than everyone else agrees to pay so he drags the group through the mud repeatedly and at every opportunity to try and make people agree with him.
Personally I think he's trying to win the argument through attrition, with opposing views loosing the will to live.
Ah, well as I have no desire to watch Rapture whether or not they have an EPG slot I'll tune out now