*throws stone*
I'm ready for my judgment now.
Keep twisting facts to justify your actions, it's still wrong, and that you write a page long justification just makes it that much more apparent. Satellite companies don't MAKE you do anything. (Didn't your mother ever tell you that no person controls the actions of another? Except for Sigfried and Roy, but that's different, they share custody of the tiger.) I'm not saying I agree with the NAB's stance, and I definately don't agree with the sat companies stuck in the middle.
I think the sentence above sums up the issue nicely. People generally don't care so long as the liability usually lies with another. But then the same people get upset if it comes back on them at a later time. (Whoops. Forgot that DISH lost distant distribution privilages eh? Sure they could have requalified everyone, but a few honest subs might have helped. Oh wow, we never thought about that. But people liked what they were getting, legal or not and now most everyone loses out. Feel better?) Makes no sense to me but ok then. How can you expect a company to do honest business with you when you don't do honest business with them? Is the legal and ethical good conduct requirement only one way to you?
My partnership with DISH is a business arrangement. Quid pro quo, I give them something, they give me something. If I give them less than I'm obligated (good information, product, legal cooperation, etc) should I be surprised if their reaction isn't the one I prefer? Everyone who chooses to do this needs to understand one thing: It's about as serious as smoking a joint in your backyard, but since its illegal if you get caught you're on your own. Suddenly all that moral support people get from current "movers" will disappear in the blink of an eye, and the consequences they'll face alone, be it fine or time. And in America...even if the satellite companies get nailed, it will be the CUSTOMERS that pay for it. Oops, another oversight?