Quote:
Originally Posted by Olibubble
That depends on which court you wish to prosecute in.
|
No. It doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olibubble
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Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 actually covers this but it was repealed, but the the principle of obtaining pecuniary advantages (where you should have paid for something but didn't) remains in Theft Act 1978.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) |
3rd party boxes ARE NOT obtaining a service by deception. Deception would be telling them you'll pay for them, have them give you the services, and then not paying. It'd be something like sending them a fake cheque, it'd be doing anything where they believe you will be paying for the service, but then you fail to do so. There is no deception involved with connecting a 3rd party box as VM are not aware of the matter so can not have been decieved to the fact that you intended to pay.
This is the very reason why it's a specific crime in its own right, if it was covered in the theft act there wouldn't have been a need to create a seperate crime for it.
Even if it was covered by it it still wouldn't make it theft. The theft act covers far more crimes than just acts of theft, and very clearly defines theft, and thief in it's very first paragraph:
"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly."