Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
Nope. Legally speaking it's not theft at all.
It's an offence of "fraudulently receiving programmes" and is covered by the copyright act and not the theft act.
Theft requires you to permanantly deprive the owner of something. |
True, you do have a point about the exact definition of the term "theft", but my comment was really more aimed at highlighting how relatively unimportant an offense this is, both in the eyes of the law and the cable companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
And this week's winner of the "Richard of the week" award is........
Supremus!  |
I'd like to thank God, my parents, and everyone who believed in me...
Quote:
for taking a subject so far off topic just to insult some of the CF members that it's in a different time-zone. 
|
It's not an insult, it's a term of endearment, and the general point is entirely relevant, since people's personal values and beliefs are crucial to how they perceive and justify their own actions and misdeeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyCambs
There's no difference in taking cable TV without paying to taking electricity without paying - do you do that as well?
|
There's a considerable difference, actually. If you have a minimum subscription, the signal the cable company sends into your house contains every single channel. There's no more or less drain on that resource, whether you're watching BBC1 legally, or using a dodgy box to watch a channel you haven't subscribed to. Clearly that's a very different issue from electricity, where you're obviously draining a finite resource.