Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
Nope. Legally speaking it's not theft at all.
|
That depends on which court you wish to prosecute in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
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. |
Not true.
Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 actually covers this but it was repealed, but the the principle of obtaining pecuniary advantages (where you should have paid for something but didn't) remains in Theft Act 1978.
For the context of this thread, the relevant section would be;
Section 1.
Obtaining services by deception.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1978...9780031_en.pdf
VM could prosecute under either act (and relevant court) above. Of course the burden of proof is far greater in a criminal court, and the accused has the option of a trial by jury and the costs involved are prohibitive (and no g'tee of a conviction) compared the 51% needed in a civil court (where you can claim for damages and is a heck of a lot cheaper) hence the reason why organisations nearly always opt for the civil route.
It is indeed theft, as stated under section 1 of chapter 31 of the Theft Act 1978.
And for those who wish to understand this in real English rather than the jargon that is legalese here is a nice article regarding this from auntie beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A580312
INAL (
)
PS, did anyone read the news today where a russian businessman trade marked the ; - ) and states that as : - ) and other deratives are similar they too fall under his licensing terms. Ho ho ho. Merry christmas
(TM)