Is it OK to LIE?

[jdcolombo]

I am always amused by the threads on "moving" and the various views of legality and morality revealed there. Is moving "legal"? No, in the sense that it is clearly defrauding your service provider to obtain something which by law you are not entitled to. It is illegal in a civil sense, the same way that committing a tort (e.g., a car accident) is "illegal." Is it a crime? Not that I know of. Theft of service is a crime; lying about your address to obtain service that you pay for is not theft of service. It could, in theory, make you liable for civil damages to a third party who was harmed by your fraud (e.g., your local station claiming that they are damaged because you are watching a different station; but this would actually be virtually impossible to prove). But I know of no law that makes it a crime.

Is it "moral"? Well, that's one for you to decide. I would only note that the United States was founded on (and has a long history of) civil disobedience. The folks who took part in the Boston Tea Party were not only breaking civil law (destroying someone else's property), they were also committing a crime. Ditto for everyone who participated in the American Revolution; the farmers who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion; everyone in the South who fought in the Civil War; virtually all the Vietnam war protesters, etc.

For me, "moving" is not a moral issue. It is my expression of civil disobedience against artificial monopolies that are anti-consumer. But I also drive 75 on the Interstate highways in Illinois, where the speed limit is 65. And I realize that what I'm doing is illegal in the civil law sense and am willing to accept responsibility for that. For those of you who think "moving" is morally wrong, fine. But remember "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As long as you scrupulously obey speed limits, never J-walk at intersections; never fib on your tax return; always return excess change you get back at the grocery store or correct a billing error in your favor, always tell the truth to your friends and your spouse, more power to you. If you do all those things, then you are entitled to lecture the rest of us. If not, then . . . don't.

John C.

 

[hancox]

It could, in theory, make you liable for civil damages to a third party who was harmed by your fraud (e.g., your local station claiming that they are damaged because you are watching a different station; but this would actually be virtually impossible to prove).

In theory, the only way this could happen is if they could prove Neilsen based some numbers on your change. Not happening.

 

[mdonnelly]

I am always amused by the threads on "moving" and the various views of legality and morality revealed there. Is moving "legal"? No, in the sense that it is clearly defrauding your service provider to obtain something which by law you are not entitled to. It is illegal in a civil sense, the same way that committing a tort (e.g., a car accident) is "illegal." Is it a crime? Not that I know of. Theft of service is a crime; lying about your address to obtain service that you pay for is not theft of service. It could, in theory, make you liable for civil damages to a third party who was harmed by your fraud (e.g., your local station claiming that they are damaged because you are watching a different station; but this would actually be virtually impossible to prove). But I know of no law that makes it a crime.

Is it "moral"? Well, that's one for you to decide. I would only note that the United States was founded on (and has a long history of) civil disobedience. The folks who took part in the Boston Tea Party were not only breaking civil law (destroying someone else's property), they were also committing a crime. Ditto for everyone who participated in the American Revolution; the farmers who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion; everyone in the South who fought in the Civil War; virtually all the Vietnam war protesters, etc.

For me, "moving" is not a moral issue. It is my expression of civil disobedience against artificial monopolies that are anti-consumer. But I also drive 75 on the Interstate highways in Illinois, where the speed limit is 65. And I realize that what I'm doing is illegal in the civil law sense and am willing to accept responsibility for that. For those of you who think "moving" is morally wrong, fine. But remember "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As long as you scrupulously obey speed limits, never J-walk at intersections; never fib on your tax return; always return excess change you get back at the grocery store or correct a billing error in your favor, always tell the truth to your friends and your spouse, more power to you. If you do all those things, then you are entitled to lecture the rest of us. If not, then . . . don't.

John C.

All of the cases you cite are valid examples of civil disobedience to bad laws. What you're missing is that all of those cases were done publicly, with the intent of changing the law that was perceived as immoral or oppressive.

Is the banning of locals from outside your area immoral or oppressive? Possibly. If so, when you report your "move" to your satellite provider, state specifically that this is just a sham move because you're protesting their oppressive policies.

Report your actions to the CEO and the media. Try to get coverage of your protest. Take the consequences of civil disobedience. Start a groundswell of protest that the lawmakers can hear. Your little lies only help yourself, not the general public.

Don't put yourself up on a pedestal with Rosa Parks until you're willing to walk the walk.

 

[hancox]

I would say some of us have. While I have not personally "moved," I did meet with my local representative regarding SHVIRA. The "significantly viewed" provision of this law was teetering on getting left out, and made it in. This will probably take a bunch of the needs for "moving" out of the picture. When the distant network provision also makes it in, this will take out another chunk.

 

[DobyMax]

mdonnelly, it's clear that you and voomster2 have too much time on your hands. This stuff is comical. With everything in this ****** up world to be concerned about, you two are ranting about a man moving and getting some local channels. He didn't say he wanted them for free. Jeez. I say if you want to move, move. It's your right. I'm sure the original poster wishes he had never even bought up the subject here.
As far as people here with morals and your claim that the non-response of a mod to address this topic says something about this board, you are wrong. I think it's a matter of nobody is as uptight about it as you and voomster2. Get over it. Relax. With all of your morals, you're starting to sound like Jerry Farwell.

And why the upside down longhorn. Is UT in a state of mourning?

 

[mhking]

And I realize that what I'm doing is illegal in the civil law sense and am willing to accept responsibility for that.

Excellent point! The "Holier-Than-Thou" folk here who are so quick to condemn those of us who choose the risk, for whatever reason neglect to recognize that firstly, we are PAYING for the service that we are receiving, and secondly, that we recognize that it goes "against the rules," but we are willing to accept that risk.

Our risk-taking in no way harms them; it does not affect cost ratios, nor does it place an unnecessary burdon on them or any other subscriber. On the contrary, the companies are more than happy to accept our money in exchange for providing us service.

The same goes for those who receive Star Choice/Bell ExpressVu programming on this side of the border (and yes, I hope to join that number later this year). They accept the risk, and are willing to pay the provider for the service. No sweat off of anyone's brow, save our own.

Bottom line to the "would-be satellite police?" Get a life and get over it.

 

[jdcolombo]

All of the cases you cite are valid examples of civil disobedience to bad laws. What you're missing is that all of those cases were done publicly, with the intent of changing the law that was perceived as immoral or oppressive.

Is the banning of locals from outside your area immoral or oppressive? Possibly. If so, when you report your "move" to your satellite provider, state specifically that this is just a sham move because you're protesting their oppressive policies.

Report your actions to the CEO and the media. Try to get coverage of your protest. Take the consequences of civil disobedience. Start a groundswell of protest that the lawmakers can hear. Your little lies only help yourself, not the general public.

Don't put yourself up on a pedestal with Rosa Parks until you're willing to walk the walk.

I wasn't intending to put myself up there with Rosa Parks; I was only pointing out that there are many examples of people deciding that breaking the law was a moral act. I should have been more clear about that in my post.

On the other hand, I have never made a secret of my "moving" - in fact, I have informed various staff at WCIA, our local CBS station, of my methods of securing a CBS HDTV signal in light of their continuing intransigence on putting up an HD signal in our market, and told them that I will continue to do so until they provide me with a "local" HDTV signal. I have written the FCC and my representatives regarding the ludicrous monopoly policies protecting local stations. I have tried to get other folks to do the same.

So, Rosa Parks I'm not, but it's also not quite accurate to say that I lie in silence.

John C.

 

[voomster2]

I would only note that the United States was founded on (and has a long history of) civil disobedience. The folks who took part in the Boston Tea Party were not only breaking civil law (destroying someone else's property), they were also committing a crime. Ditto for everyone who participated in the American Revolution; the farmers who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion; everyone in the South who fought in the Civil War; virtually all the Vietnam war protesters, etc.

If you listen closely I think you can hear "America, The Beautiful" playing in the background.
Tissue anyone?

 

[KyDave]

This turned out to be pretty good thread!

It would be interesting to hear arguments from the local broadcasters point of view. Are they paying a huge chunk of money for the exclusivity? Is this exclusivity a major incentive for them even being in business? If we do away with the laws, would we potentially be wiping out a major incentive for the local broadcaster to even exist and really be shooting ourselves in the foot?

For what it's worth, I would be on the 'it's ok' side. I don't have locals, but it's nice to know that since they are full conus (at least they were recently - Lex, KY) if I ever had to move ANYWHERE in the US I could possibly have access to them.

 

[directvrep]

Still??

Ya know, one of my work friends talked me into coming back around here.
He was posting on the board for a while and became distraught that one of the moderators close a thread after making a valid point.... now almost the same topic has came back up.
I think I'd like to point out a few things...

I am always amused by the threads on "moving" and the various views of legality and morality revealed there. Is moving "legal"? No

So "moving" is illegal?

Is it a crime? Not that I know of.

So, if it is illegal, and you do it.... then you are not committing a crime? How does that work out? breaking the law = illegal = crime. What other way is there?
Please read your own post before posting it.

Going back to the original post. How is that "breaking" the law .

It's called piracy, I'll get to that a little later.

I'll offer my opinion here...

1) Hacking is stealing signal that everyone else pays for. End of story. No-no.

2) "moving" is only questionable because of questionable law. It's not legal to get out of market locals because the NAB has lined the pockets of lawmakers to make it so. Questioning / challenging this rule is patriotic and proper. USA! USA!

I'm glad that's an opinion.... I'll get to that one in a moment as well...

THAT (piracy) ISNT CONDONED because you are not paying for service!!! Threads would be locked, nuked, or edited by mods for their personal amusement

Where does your definition of piracy come from?

( again )
I have plenty of morals....so just because I forgot to tell Dish that I moved, it's my fault?

Again, I'm still PAYING for my services.

Not to contradict yourself, but did you really forget?

I told Dish I needed to change my billing address but keep my physical the same...done in 5 minutes

or did you intentionally lie to them? Not to mention the whole point of paying for them.

For all other points that I was going to address. Here is a post from one of my colleges
view the full text here = http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=38100

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Surfer10793
Also calling this piracy goes too far. Piracy suggests that you are not paying for this reception. This person merely has a vacation home in a foreign country but legally pays for his subscription.


How can you legally pay for a service that is obtained illegally?
-also see notes below regarding piracy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceberg
piracy is not paying for the subscription

I'm sorry, was I unclear in the exact definition given by an accredited publisher of THE most widely used dictionary?

piracy- D3) the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

does that say ANYTHING about paying? no, it says " the unauthorized use"
Quote:
so, if someone is PAYING a bill, whats the problem here?


that's a moot point now.
Quote:
if they are hacking the signal, I agree. If they are paying, let them pay. They aren't doing anything wrong.


I'm sorry you feel that breaking the law isn't doing anything wrong.
Quote:
SC & ExpressVu don't care where you are located, as long as you pay the bill.
I am a PAYING customer to ExpressVu for over a year
I am a PAYING customer to StarChoice for a couple months now
I ordered both my systems from Canada and they shipped them to the US with NO PROBLEMS
I called StarChoice and asked them if I took my unit to the US, can I receive a signal. They said "Yes you can and you can call us and order PPV if you'd like, Mr. Iceberg". There have been articles in US papers about people who subscribe to Canadian TV...


Good for you, I'm glad you are paying for service, I really am. As per the other companies, if they get fined... or if they provide signal against FCC regulations, so be it.
Quote:
I have a problem with people who are stealing satellite signals...but if they are in the US or Canada, they still have to go find them. But if you are a PAYING customer, I don't see the problem. My god, if I lived a couple hundred miles north, I'd be in Canada


You have your opinion, I have mine. I just see things differently than you.
Quote:
Cripes, next thing you're going to say "moving" or haiving a free to air system is illegal too


I have no problem with FTA, it is simply that, free. That being the case they are non-profit orginizations who are authorized to broadcast without boundaries to all who wish to receive the signal.
However "moving" is illegal. That's why you call it "moving" and not "falsifying documents that you are submitting to the FCC in order to receive a service that you are otherwise not eligable to receive."

Ya know what? I'm not really up to disputing all your little "tricks to circumvent the system". That's all I have to say on this matter.

Sorry for the long post, but it had to be said. Now, Mr Iceberg... since I have proven DEFINITIVLY that this is classified as piracy... will you lock the thread or deleat it?
You guys are still promoting the same thing that I left this place for, I really had hoped for some change.

DirecTv Res Spec

 

[jdcolombo]

Ya know, one of my work friends talked me into coming back around here.
He was posting on the board for a while and became distraught that one of the moderators close a thread after making a valid point.... now almost the same topic has came back up.
I think I'd like to point out a few things...


So "moving" is illegal?

So, if it is illegal, and you do it.... then you are not committing a crime? How does that work out? breaking the law = illegal = crime. What other way is there?
Please read your own post before posting it.

DirecTv Res Spec

All you have definitively proven is that you are ignorant of legal principles. The word "illegal" in its broad sense means the violation of a known legal duty. Such violations can be classified into two types: a civil violation, making you liable to the injured party for damages, and a criminal violation, making you liable for jail time. Some illegal acts are both civil law violations and criminal ones. Murder, for example, is both a crime and a civil tort (which is why OJ got sued in civil court even after he escaped criminal conviction). But some "illegal" acts are not crimes. For example, the failure to perform under a contract is certainly "illegal" in the sense that it violates an existing legal duty for you to perform. Fail to perform and you are liable for damages to the other party. Breach of contract, however, is most certainly NOT a crime. Neither are many torts (personal injury cases), even though committing a tort is a violation of your legal duty to the other person (note that some torts ARE crimes: assault and battery are both civil torts and crimes in most states).

Copyright infringement per se is not a crime; it makes one liable in damages to the injured party. Ditto for patent infringement. Theft of service is a crime. Your friend's definition that you want us all to look at which you find "definitively" answers this question, however, is taken from a dictionary, not from Title 18 of the United States Code, which defines crimes (or analogous state law). I have looked at Title 18. I haven't read every word of it, so I can't say definitively that there is nothing in Title 18 that would make lying to a service provider about your address in order to obtain service THAT YOU PAY FOR a crime, but I sure don't see anything that says that. Theft, burglary, robbery all require "stealing" - element of nonpayment. Selling devices designed to illegally intercept communications signals is a crime but that doesn't fit this situation. Etc.

So, please point me to the relevant provision of Title 18, United States Code, that you believe makes "moving" a crime. Then we will discuss matters. Until then, get educated before you post.

John C.

 

[voomster2]

Ya know, one of my work friends talked me into coming back around here.
He was posting on the board for a while and became distraught that one of the moderators close a thread after making a valid point.... now almost the same topic has came back up.
I think I'd like to point out a few things...


So "moving" is illegal?

So, if it is illegal, and you do it.... then you are not committing a crime? How does that work out? breaking the law = illegal = crime. What other way is there?
Please read your own post before posting it.


It's called piracy, I'll get to that a little later.


I'm glad that's an opinion.... I'll get to that one in a moment as well...


Where does your definition of piracy come from?


Not to contradict yourself, but did you really forget?

or did you intentionally lie to them? Not to mention the whole point of paying for them.

For all other points that I was going to address. Here is a post from one of my colleges
view the full text here = http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=38100


Sorry for the long post, but it had to be said. Now, Mr Iceberg... since I have proven DEFINITIVLY that this is classified as piracy... will you lock the thread or deleat it?
You guys are still promoting the same thing that I left this place for, I really had hoped for some change.

DirecTv Res Spec

Wouldn't we all like to see a post in this thread from the founder of SatelliteGuys.us ,Scott Greczkowski, stating his viewpoint after all that's been said?

C'mon Scott, chime in. (Do you agree or disagree w/ Mr. Iceberg?)

 

[directvrep]

Ignorant? Uneducated? lol

So, please point me to the relevant provision of Title 18, United States Code, that you believe makes "moving" a crime. Then we will discuss matters. Until then, get educated before you post.

John C.

But good sir, I am educated.
Just a prefacing question. Have you even looked at TITLE 18?

While I will admit, Title 18 is called the "Crimes and Criminal Procedure " title, it's not the only title that covers crimes. I will however follow the simple request and point you to the relevant material.

Here ya go TITLE 18, PART I, Chapter 63 , § 1341
Title 18, PART I , Chapter 63 , § 1342
You violate both sections via providing false information.

I could say that Title 18, PART I , Chapter 47 , § 1001 would cover any false statements made, seeing as this is a matter pertaining to the legislative branch.

I wouldn't really say that Title 18, PART I , Chapter 63 , § 1343 has much to do with this situation, however the copyrights for broadcasting and receiving certain services could be considered "property".


Shall we continue this conversation?
Where are your legal standings that this is NOT a crime and/or that this a legally acceptable measure?

Take your own advice.... step up to the plate... I'll educate you.

Now, since we have classified this as a LEGAL matter, I would have to insist that "moving" is now considered not acceptable and all references be removed from all posts. That's going to make the mod's happy.... more work.

DirecTv Res Spec

 

[jdcolombo]

But good sir, I am educated.
Just a prefacing question. Have you even looked at TITLE 18?

While I will admit, Title 18 is called the "Crimes and Criminal Procedure " title, it's not the only title that covers crimes. I will however follow the simple request and point you to the relevant material.

Here ya go TITLE 18, PART I, Chapter 63 , § 1341
Title 18, PART I , Chapter 63 , § 1342
You violate both sections via providing false information.

I could say that Title 18, PART I , Chapter 47 , § 1001 would cover any false statements made, seeing as this is a matter pertaining to the legislative branch.

I wouldn't really say that Title 18, PART I , Chapter 63 , § 1343 has much to do with this situation, however the copyrights for broadcasting and receiving certain services could be considered "property".


Shall we continue this conversation?
Where are your legal standings that this is NOT a crime and/or that this a legally acceptable measure?

Take your own advice.... step up to the plate... I'll educate you.

Now, since we have classified this as a LEGAL matter, I would have to insist that "moving" is now considered not acceptable and all references be removed from all posts. That's going to make the mod's happy.... more work.

DirecTv Res Spec

Well, the only problem you have is that Sections 1341 and 1342 deal with MAIL FRAUD and require use of the Postal Service to commit fraud ("depositing" an item in the mail). The wire fraud statute, 1343, might be applicable if you lie over the telephone, but each of these sections require a "scheme" to defraud, which has been interpreted by courts as requiring an element of deprivation of property without compensation. See Carpenter v. U.S. 484 U.S. 19, 27 (1987) (fraudulent schemes "usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching."'" (quoting McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358 (1987) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924))). Since the "mover" in these cases is actually paying for service, it is doubtful that there is "a deprivation of something of value" and therefore no "scheme" to defraud.

Section 1001 of Chapter 47 involves false statements made to the US Government. That's what they are talking about with respect to matters "within the jurisidiction" of the executive or legislative branch. False statements to the SEC, for example, violate this section (and it is often used in securities violations, among other things, like lying to government investigators).

So I stand by my earlier statements. Moving is definitely "illegal" in the civil law sense. As I said earlier, I can't find anything that makes "moving" a crime. That doesn't mean it isn't illegal. Employment discrimination is illegal; it is not a crime. An employer doesn't go to jail for violating discrimination laws; the employer is liable to the wronged employee in damages. I completely agree that if some party can prove economic harm as the result of a person "moving," then the "mover" will be liable to that person in damages. But no crime has been committed, at least not under the sections you have cited.

Want to try again?

John C.

 

[teknophyle]

It's not piracy if your paying for it! I think the FCC/NAB has their hand in this way to much. The government should get a life and let the public watch whatever the hell they want. I think that's what have a satellite dish is all about. Having access to what cable tv can't provide. Screw the cable companies to! they can't and won't compete with DTV or DISH. Oh by the way I think I am going to "MOVE" to Key West, FL to get what I want! The hell with all the LOCAL advertising! I don't watch commercials and don't know anyone whom does. That's all these local tv stations are worried about. Commericals are for getting up and going to the bathroom and having a food break in the kitchen or a cig breat outside until your show comes back on-the-air. Oh I guess the NAB/FCC does not realize or care about that! So I say do what you have to do to get what you want. It's not hurting anyone as long as your PAYING for it.

 

[directvrep]

Are you sure?

Well, the only problem you have is that Sections 1341 and 1342 deal with MAIL FRAUD and require use of the Postal Service to commit fraud ("depositing" an item in the mail). The wire fraud statute, 1343, might be applicable if you lie over the telephone, but each of these sections require a "scheme" to defraud, which has been interpreted by courts as requiring an element of deprivation of property without compensation. See Carpenter v. U.S. 484 U.S. 19, 27 (1987) (fraudulent schemes "usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching."'" (quoting McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358 (1987) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924))). Since the "mover" in these cases is actually paying for service, it is doubtful that there is "a deprivation of something of value" and therefore no "scheme" to defraud.

You are having bills printed and sent via that US postal service with an incorrect physical address, thus violating sections 1341 and 1342.
You are depriving the local station of funds. They are paying to broadcast a signal which they claim that you can pick up. DirecTv is broadcasting a signal which you can pick up. So you are getting 2 signals for the price of 1.
Do you know who funds the national feeds? The local broadcasters and paid commercials. If your local station claims you and pays to broadcast to you while you are picking up and only paying for the NY/LA feed you are taking money out of their pockets.
Section 1343 is a good idea, I only looked over a few sections and did not go into detail for research. I thought I would point out the relevant points though.

Section 1001 of Chapter 47 involves false statements made to the US Government. That's what they are talking about with respect to matters "within the jurisidiction" of the executive or legislative branch. False statements to the SEC, for example, violate this section (and it is often used in securities violations, among other things, like lying to government investigators).

You are making a false statement to the FCC ( a federal agency) by claiming a physical address that you are NOT physically at!

Want to try again?

It's not piracy if your paying for it!

That point has previously been addressed. jdcolombo is attempting to prove that via title 18 ( why only title 18 is beyond me) that this would not be considered "piracy " or criminal.
The nationally recognized, accredited, and copyrighted Merriam-Webster defined piracy as "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright ".

This says " the unauthorized use" not " a service that is not paid for". Simply put, DirecTv does not authorize these services at any address other than what the FCC deems acceptable. If you receive that service outside of the address that the FCC deems acceptable, then you are not authorized and in turn means that you are pirating that material.

As I am typing this, several points have been brought to my attention.
Not only are you violating the DirecTv customer agreement, you are knowingly falsifying information to the FCC. Any information given to DirecTv would be given to the FCC.

Section 1-j , 1-n , 3-b , and 10-b all stipulate that you are in violation of 1341, 1342, and 1343.

 

[jdcolombo]

You are having bills printed and sent via that US postal service with an incorrect physical address, thus violating sections 1341 and 1342.
You are depriving the local station of funds. They are paying to broadcast a signal which they claim that you can pick up. DirecTv is broadcasting a signal which you can pick up. So you are getting 2 signals for the price of 1.
Do you know who funds the national feeds? The local broadcasters and paid commercials. If your local station claims you and pays to broadcast to you while you are picking up and only paying for the NY/LA feed you are taking money out of their pockets.
Section 1343 is a good idea, I only looked over a few sections and did not go into detail for research. I thought I would point out the relevant points though.

You are making a false statement to the FCC ( a federal agency) by claiming a physical address that you are NOT physically at!

Want to try again?


That point has previously been addressed. jdcolombo is attempting to prove that via title 18 ( why only title 18 is beyond me) that this would not be considered "piracy " or criminal.
The nationally recognized, accredited, and copyrighted Merriam-Webster defined piracy as "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright ".

This says " the unauthorized use" not " a service that is not paid for". Simply put, DirecTv does not authorize these services at any address other than what the FCC deems acceptable. If you receive that service outside of the address that the FCC deems acceptable, then you are not authorized and in turn means that you are pirating that material.

As I am typing this, several points have been brought to my attention.
Not only are you violating the DirecTv customer agreement, you are knowingly falsifying information to the FCC. Any information given to DirecTv would be given to the FCC.

Section 1-j , 1-n , 3-b , and 10-b all stipulate that you are in violation of 1341, 1342, and 1343.

OK. Well, it's obvious that I'm not going to convince you. And it's obvious you're not going to convince me. I could respond to each of your points (for example, bills are printed by DirecTV, not the "mover" and therefore don't fit the definition of mail fraud; many people don't even pay by mail and don't get bills at all, preferring a direct debit to their credit card; information about your address is NOT communicated BY THE MOVER to the FCC; therefore, the mover is not lying to the government; it is unlikely that Sections 1341-1343 apply at all given the "scheme" requirement and its interpretation by courts; the reason Title 18 is important, and not Websters, is because crimes are based upon statutory law, not the dictionary; etc.), but this would simply go on forever, like someone trying to convince President Bush he made a mistake in invading Iraq. He's never going to admit it, and he honestly believes he is right. You honestly believe you are right; I honestly believe you are wrong. You believe you have "definitively" proven your case; I'll leave that to the judgment of third parties who have read the postings here.

And it's pretty obvious everyone else has lost interest in our debate, so you go happily your way and I'll go happily mine, and if you ever come across a case of someone being prosecuted for "moving" please post that information. That would indeed definitively prove your point.

John C.

 

[hehdaddy]

Okay enough of this legalese nonsense. Here is my question. Out of the whole country, what would be the best place to "move" to????

 

[dishrich]

Okay enough of this legalese nonsense. Here is my question. Out of the whole country, what would be the best place to "move" to????

What are you trying to get & from WHERE???
Can you at least tell use where you're at (or at least somewhere close) so we can help you.

 

[dishrich]

And it's pretty obvious everyone else has lost interest in our debate

I 2nd THAT - I HIGHLY doubt it's going to change anyone's mind at this time, so why waste the bandwidth.

DTVrep - I guess you WON'T be posting anyplace, anymore, since none of the "big 3" dbs boards gives a rat's hieny about people moving & evidently have a life. Don't let the doorknob hit ya on the way out...excuse me while I go back to enjoying all my ill-gotten OOM neworks from NY, Chicago, Denver & LA.