• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • optissima@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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).

  • yessikg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Boo! They should be expending the money on adding more channels instead