All Chipped Cable Boxes Going Down - Page 61

Kymmy · 31-05-2010, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

Nope, because it doesn't state you can ONLY seize where the public has access. If you couldn't carry out the right in a domestic property it would be exempted in the same way as business premises are in that section.

I think it's open to interpretations and I am no legal eagle (nor like a legal illegal

)

The way I read it is that the business side is there as the public do have access to a lot of business premises (for example shops) and if a person owns the shop then they are covered the same as a private house. BUT a market stall holder can not be determined as a place of business just a point of sale.. Otherwise any illegal street seller of fake DVD's could specifiy that his corner of the street is his regular place of business and walk off with his conterfit goods..

TheDon do you have experience with this? or in a legal profession? Just that I understand your interpretation as well as my own but was wondering if your viewpoint had any knowledge as to why one interpretation is correct?

TheDon · 31-05-2010, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I think it's open to interpretations and I am no legal eagle (nor like a legal illegal

)

Oh definitely, like I said before IANAL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The way I read it is that the business side is there as the public do have access to a lot of business premises (for example shops) and if a person owns the shop then they are covered the same as a private house. BUT a market stall holder can not be determined as a place of business just a point of sale.. Otherwise any illegal street seller of fake DVD's could specifiy that his corner of the street is his regular place of business and walk off with his conterfit goods..

A point of sale is a place of business by any definition. The question is if it's a regular one, which if they have a market stall that they man regularly, it is. A one off car boot wouldn't be, but a regular car boot (say on the last sunday of every month) would be. A street seller would have to be there regularly for them to have protection from an on the spot seizure, and if they are then you just apply to a court order. If they dispute you thinking they aren't then that's why you notify the police first, so they can come along and sort it out.

This is the entire point of the right of seizure though, it's for use when you couldn't otherwise apply for a court order to seize in advance and instead are acting on opportunity. If you know someone is going to regularly have possession of them in a course of business you go through the courts, if you just otherwise come across someone with one you can seize it on the spot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

TheDon do you have experience with this? or in a legal profession? Just that I understand your interpretation as well as my own but was wondering if your viewpoint had any knowledge as to why one interpretation is correct?

Not with this specifically, but with interpreting legal jargon, part of my degree was law based (which a fair focus on copyright although not this aspect of it as it was part of a CS degree).

Essentially though any interpretation could be correct, it just depends who's interpretation the judge agrees with at the time.

Kymmy · 31-05-2010, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

Essentially though any interpretation could be correct, it just depends who's interpretation the judge agrees with at the time.

Yep

totally agree there

Saaf_laandon_mo · 02-06-2010, 10:31

I'd care more about Virgin cracking down on chipped boxes if it meant cheaper monthly subscriptions to me (although being on Sky it makes no difference either way).

Felim_Doyle · 02-06-2010, 12:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

Satellite isn't unicast, which is a directed signal from one point to another, it's broadcast.

D'oh!

I made the same mistake someone else made in interpreting one of my earlier posts. I meant 'unidirectional' not 'unicast'.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

Post 888 is by Felim Doyle, not me

Hey, keep me out of this. Post #888 is a reply from TheDon to one of my posts and has nothing to do with confiscation or court warrants. I think you need to unravel the thread from post #886 working backwards to the original contentious remark!

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 ----------

I'm not sure what the definitions are in law but even a car boot sale may be covered as a place of business. The individual seller has paid the organiser for a patch and the organiser has rented the venue, more often than not, on a regular basis agreement. With a market stall, the organiser is usually the local council or its representative. Although their may be different permits involved, a market and a car boot sale seem very similar to me.

Anyway, I don't want to get into this largely uninformed and speculative 'legal' discussion and I think we should all move on. Wait a few of months until Nagra 1 has been removed and then restart the discussion based on the results.

Did my dodgy neighbour continue to receive free cable (FreeLoad

)? Did he/she avail of the amnesty and go 'legit'? Did they switch to satellite (BSkyB or FreeSat) or 'downgrade' to DTT on FreeView? How much did my subscription go down or content go up as a result of this new injection of revenue to VM from the reformed FreeLoad-ers? All this and more but only when we actually know something!

Seizure? I think I'm having one!

Angua · 06-06-2010, 17:52

Saw someone asking for a Virgin Media Box on freecycle. Advised them and the group administrators about the illegality of such a transaction.

Sirius · 06-06-2010, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua

Saw someone asking for a Virgin Media Box on freecycle. Advised them and the group administrators about the illegality of such a transaction.

You should have let them waste there money

Angua · 06-06-2010, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

You should have let them waste there money

It was Freecycle so just the expense of collection

Sirius · 06-06-2010, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua

It was Freecycle so just the expense of collection

Missed that

Did hear the other day that there is a trade in untouched virgin boxes.

It seems some of the dodgy box users have modded there subbed box's, How stupid can they get. So they are after unmodded boxes to hand back when the modded subbed box goes off

Russ Bartini · 06-06-2010, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

Missed that

Did hear the other day that there is a trade in untouched virgin boxes.

It seems some of the dodgy box users have modded there subbed box's, How stupid can they get. So they are after unmodded boxes to hand back when the modded subbed box goes off

How do you feel about card sharing mate?

Sirius · 06-06-2010, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ Bartini

How do you feel about card sharing mate?

We will see and you know you will have to pay for a new box and for access to the servers each year don't you. Everything i have heard about it makes me think think grab and run. All so do you think the cable companies will not be able to hunt down the cs servers

Heard on another forum that one of those servers has already died the death

Quote:

hi
bought it from a website from someone i have used before to buy ************. yes i find it strange too. tried factory default, reset router. everythong looks fine, just that its not connecting to cs server for some reason. i can only think its something at the server end. does anyone have a support email address or a way to contact the server hosts

dodgy servers run by dodgy gits after your money and no way to contact them.

Enjoy being ripped off

Stuart · 06-06-2010, 20:28

I find it amazing that people assume that someone who rips off large DTV companies is will not also rip off customers.

After all, they aren't going to go complaining to anyone that they've been ripped off as they are technically doing something illegal.

It reminds me of a scam they covered in "The Register" years ago. A porn company registered a particularly offensive sounding name that they used for credit card billing purposes. They then charged extortionate amounts to people cards, thinking that most people would not complain due to the risk they might have to explain why they are ordering from a company with an offensive name.

Sirius · 06-06-2010, 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I find it amazing that people assume that someone who rips off large DTV companies is will not also rip off customers.
.

Thats the problem with the system he has posted about. They take you money for the year and then could easily do a runner and then start up with a different name and then take your money again. Also the set tops are dedicated so they could just remove support if there is any for the box you have and then make you buy a new box each year. Con artists of the highest order

They are a bunch of crooks so why anyone would trust them with money i don't know. I have heard of 2 cs servers that have failed now.

jtaylor06 · 06-06-2010, 21:03

What would be funny is if someone was sold a cardboard 'box' lol

Sirius · 06-06-2010, 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtaylor06

What would be funny is if someone was sold a cardboard 'box' lol

Would love to see that happen.