All Chipped Cable Boxes Going Down

[shawty]

Originally Posted by TraxData

And there's my point, your not taking something, the signal is there, your just decrypting it and as i and stuart have pointed out, it's not theft, it is illegal though

"take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

You are taking that signal, decrypting it without permission on an illegal basis and not intending to pay for it, its theft, no matter what way you look at it.

Originally Posted by shawty

"take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

You are taking that signal, decrypting it without permission on an illegal basis and not intending to pay for it, its theft, no matter what way you look at it.

Nope, it aint.

As you said, your decrypting the signal, your not taking it anywhere, the signal is already going into the house, the only illegal thing your doing is decrypting the signals, which is not theft, no matter what way you look at it.

How can you steal a signal to which is already being transmitted to the house/any box you may have? you cant.

[shawty]

Originally Posted by TraxData

Nope, it aint.

Yes it is.

As you said, your decrypting the signal,

Illegally, its not yours. Your stealing the signal to decrpyt it.

your not taking it anywhere,

And? You dont have to take it anywhere to steal it.

the signal is already going into the house

And, its still theft or stealing if you are decrypting that signal to watch TV services without inteding to pay for them.

the only illegal thing your doing is decrypting the signals,

You mean stealing cable? You do not have permission to view it so therefor have to steal it.

which is not theft, no matter what way you look at it.

It is theft, your taking and tampering with something that is not yours without intending to pay for it. Just because a signal is going in or not doesnt make no difference.

How can you steal a signal to which is already being transmitted to the house/any box you may have? you cant.

You can, by decrypting it illegally without inteding to pay, there for you are stealing a service from a cable company.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by TraxData

Nope, it aint.

As you said, your decrypting the signal, your not taking it anywhere, the signal is already going into the house, the only illegal thing your doing is decrypting the signals, which is not theft, no matter what way you look at it.

How can you steal a signal to which is already being transmitted to the house/any box you may have? you cant.

You are not taking anything physical, you are stealing a service. The OED does not define stealing as taking something physical and Merriam Webster specifically includes services in it's definition of theft.

Does it really matter whether you call it 'theft' or 'unauthorised use of services' - the principle is the same, whatever label you put on it ?

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by homealone

Does it really matter whether you call it 'theft' or 'unauthorised use of services' - the principle is the same, whatever label you put on it ?

Thank you homealone, that was the point I was originally making, at the end of the day you would be taking without permission something your not entitled to.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by homealone

Does it really matter whether you call it 'theft' or 'unauthorised use of services' - the principle is the same, whatever label you put on it ?

That's the problem here. There are those here who defend this thieving to the hilt. Wonder if there the same lot that think the criminal should not be punished as hard as the victim.

Stealing cable service is just that stealing and for that you should be up before the judge. NO If's NO But's.

Makes me wonder WHY some here defend this stealing so hard ?.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

You are not taking anything physical, you are stealing a service. The OED does not define stealing as taking something physical and Merriam Webster specifically includes services in it's definition of theft.

The OED and Merriam Webster mean nothing when it comes to UK law though, and although TraxData is making his point badly, he is right.

The theft act is VERY clear on the definition of theft.

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.

The key part is bolded. When you use an illegal box you are not permanently depriving VM of any property, therefore it isn't theft. It's the same as why copyright infringement isn't theft (no matter how much the riaa will tell you otherwise) as long as you're not physically depriving someone of something then under UK law it's not theft.

That's not to say it's not illegal (is it) it's just covered by different laws.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by homealone

Does it really matter whether you call it 'theft' or 'unauthorised use of services' - the principle is the same, whatever label you put on it ?

True..

[Kymmy]

Sections 125 and 126 of the Communications Act 2003 (dishonestly obtaining an electronic communications service).

I think that might point you in the right direction especially as TV/Radio/Internet is covered under that act.

Kymmy

PS...full text for the act is at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003..._20030021_en_1

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

Actually my mistake... The previous act covers Internet only and not broadcast services, which instead is covered under Fraudulent reception of transmissions which is sections 297, 298 and 299 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

Kymmy

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Actually my mistake... The previous act covers Internet only and not broadcast services, which instead is covered under Fraudulent reception of transmissions which is sections 297, 298 and 299 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

Kymmy

Indeed, and that's where you can see why there's a huge difference between it being theft or not. Theft carries a maximum sentence of 7 years, Fraudulent reception of transmissions carries a maximum fine of £5,000.

I doubt as many people would use these boxes if they knew that if they got caught they'd possibly be doing hard time rather than just having to pay a fine that will be nowhere near as high as the maximum.

[Ignatius]

Interesting discussion

Does this mean that if NTL intercept my communications with web sites and use them for their own benefit (ie providing them to a third party at an agreed price so that adverts can be targetted at me) that this can be classed as unapproved interception of communication, and can, under the same argument, be considered theft? (or "fraudulent reception of transmissions")

just a thought

[v0id]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Fine. The services are overpriced. Go for Sky or Freeview then. Freeview is free once you pay the licence.

Freeview is free once you've paid for the equipment.
You need to buy a licence whatever service you subscribe to

[carol_s]

Originally Posted by TheDon

........as long as you're not physically depriving someone of something then under UK law it's not theft.........

They are depriving Virgin of income - which could be construed as theft (at least in my eyes)

[danielf]

Originally Posted by TheDon

The theft act is VERY clear on the definition of theft.

The key part is bolded. When you use an illegal box you are not permanently depriving VM of any property, therefore it isn't theft. It's the same as why copyright infringement isn't theft (no matter how much the riaa will tell you otherwise) as long as you're not physically depriving someone of something then under UK law it's not theft.

That's not to say it's not illegal (is it) it's just covered by different laws.

Does that mean if you dishonestly appropriate someone else's property, but you have the intention of giving it back (say in 25 years), it's not theft?