6 ms·

I thought this might be fiction because the amount of time for pirating cable seemed crazy.. However [1] there are indeed up to 6 month penalties for stealing c

I thought this might be fiction because the amount of time for pirating cable seemed crazy.. However [1] there are indeed up to 6 month penalties for stealing cable. That's just ludicrous. How could copyright theft ever be anything other than a civil action? Jail time for stealing cable, that's just insane. Nobody gets hurt from stolen cable. We really need to look long and hard at what we allow jail time for. Jail time in service of big media corporations seems just insane. [1] https://www.tec.com/legal/cable-theft-information https://www.tec.com/legal/cable-theft-information

Larrikin 3y ago
[flagged]
- mwint 3y ago
  I wonder if it’s a thing where no one ever actually wrote “cable theft is a 6mo max sentence”, but rather a serious of things that seem reasonable on their own: - Cable theft is fraud - Fraud is a Class Z crime - Class Z crimes have this sentencing range I guess I can see how that happens.
  - ikiris 3y ago
    its much more that theft of service is generally treated as an actual crime, and the franchise situations especially due to the costs led to them pushing for laws with real teeth instead of civil penalties that are pointless on poor people.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    Someone actually wrote 6 months, it's the same statute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/553#:~:text=For%20the%20purpose%20of%20this,in%20violation%20of%20subparagraph%20(1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/553#:~:text=For%2...
- torstenvl 3y ago
  This comment is deeply inappropriate. Engaging in ideological flamewar is against HN guidelines and is just plain rude to all of the HN folks who actually work in the field you're being casually dismissive of.
  - phinnaeus 3y ago
    Genuinely trying to understand your point of view. How is this potentially offensive to anyone other than the lawmaker who decides that cable theft should carry such a harsh sentence? I don't understand how this could be construed as derogatory toward, for example, people who work at a cable company.
  - mabbo 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - torstenvl 3y ago
      > I wonder if there's any good data on the sentencing for cable theft broken down by race. If there were, that would arguably be good content for HN. In the absence of such data, completely baseless allegations of systemic racism are ideological flamewar and do not belong here.
      - stonogo 3y ago
        In what world is "I wonder if" a "baseless allegation"? It seems to me we're still several steps away from alleging anything and you're going off half-cocked.
      - profile53 3y ago
        > completely baseless allegations of systemic racism Pretty much all scientific literature in the last 40 years agrees that there is systemic racism throughout the legal system. Your choice not to believe it does not make most existing scientific research ‘an ideological flame war’.
  - profile53 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- erosenbe0 3y ago
  Certainly it is a crime in Canada too, so I think the answer is no---theft of telecommunications is broadly criminalized to prevent mafia-type involvement.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I once "heard a story" about a very smart white guy that was retired special forces--just to put this racial thing to bed. Anyway, this guy lived in a subdivision that did not get cable. The cable company said there were not enough subscribers to justify the expense of the construction to bring them service. So mister special forces takes it upon himself to string a cable himself, and then decided to bring cable to the rest of the subdivision. After getting caught and arrested, part of his restitution was to make a PSA with him on camera in handcuffs saying something like "stealing cable is a crime" or something to that effect.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Did this happen in the lower mainland?
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Oklahoma
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    > just to put this racial thing to bed n=1
erosenbe0 3y ago
Copyright is a property right. It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges. This is not strictly done in service of big media---if organized crime rings come in to town and do a ton of rogue hookups with impunity, then the cable company leaves and you have a cycle of degradation in the quality of life. Preventing organized crime is why it is a federal offense. Of course, the judicial system ought to utilize its authority with discretion so as not to severely punish simple petty thefts. Also note that cable theft (e.g., the physical tampering element) can damage emergency communication lines and can create dangerous electrical problems.
- hovden 3y ago
  Copyright is not a property right. Property rights are derived from distinct legal and philosophical origins.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges. There is no theft. In the digital world there's merely copying, but in this case it was just tuning into an existing signal with a wire. Theft of property would require that you broke into HBO's office and stole the master tapes, for example.
  - erosenbe0 3y ago
    Yes, thanks, as to copyright you are correct. I believe unless chattel is involved, it is called unauthorized reproduction and duplication rather than theft. As to the telecom aspect, it can go either way. In Canada, it is considered theft to use a telecommunications service without the rights to do so. Under USA federal criminal law, I believe it is just referred to as unauthorized reception.
- cogman10 3y ago
  > Copyright is a property right. It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges. Property theft and intellectual rights theft are two very different things. If I steal your car, you are now out a car and the use of a car. If I steal a copy of your artwork, you still have that artwork and can still sell copies of that artwork. I only start impacting your bottom line if I start selling copies. To the extent you are impacted by a copyright violation, you can be made whole with a market rate payment for the copies created and a penalty. That's what civil law is for. Wage theft has a much bigger negative impact on people's lives yet it's basically never criminally prosecuted. So why should copyright theft ever be criminally prosecuted? > Also note that cable theft (e.g., the physical tampering element) can damage emergency communication lines and can create dangerous electrical problems. Fair point, though I can't see why we'd punish that more harshly than we'd punish unauthorized digging (which is typically just civil to replace damaged lines.)
tzs 3y ago
It has nothing to do with copyright.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Right. Its using a service without paying for it which is theft if proven that it was done intentionally. Not sure how copyright was brought into this conversation.
  - Zuiii 3y ago
    No, it can't be theft unless the service provider lost the channel being "stolen" to the "thief" which makes no sense. Things quickly become silly when we insist on using the wrong concept where it doesn't apply. Charges like disrupting business operations or unauthorized access I can see, but theft? nah.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      Think of it as "theft of services". Here's one example... >ORS 164.125 >Theft of services >(2) ... “Communication service” includes, but is not limited to, use of telephone, computer and cable television systems. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125
      - Zuiii 3y ago
        I genuinely wonder what lead them to choose a word that, by definition, is so far removed from the concept being described? If we accept how this law wants to redefine Theft, then trespassing, squatting, illegal parking, and many other violations should now be called theft too since they involve using a resource in an unauthorized way and are actually depriving others from using the resource (which does not happen with cable modems). Spamming comments should also be called theft too since they're using server resource in an unauthorized way. But I have to submit: If discussed within the context of Theft of services in ORS 164.125, then I supposed the misuse of Theft can be excused. That said, I really don't think we as a society should humor or follow how some lobbyist or politician decide to misuses words.
cortesoft 3y ago
I was thinking about this. It is crazy that a private company gets to deputize the state legal apparatus to enable their business model. They want to be able to sell something that is very difficult to restrict access to, so they use the legal system to make sure it stays restricted. They want to be able to install a cable all the way to someone’s house, and then have the state prosecute them if they dare touch it.
- wheybags 3y ago
  > It is crazy that a private company gets to deputize the state legal apparatus to enable their business model. One could argue this is a major purpose of the state. When you can't deputize the state to resolve disputes, you get gang violence (see the drugs trade for more examples than you can count)
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    It just needs to be milder. A summary offence with a fine at worse. This is breach of contract not theft.
jaystraw 3y ago
Where I grew up north of Philadelphia in the 90's, the cable companies bid for municipalities and were given a monopoly -- I grew up with Lower Bucks Cablevision, for example. Since the local government got a cut, I would imagine that's why the penalties are/were harsh and criminal, as opposed to civil.

Larrikin 3y ago

[flagged]

mwint 3y ago
I wonder if it’s a thing where no one ever actually wrote “cable theft is a 6mo max sentence”, but rather a serious of things that seem reasonable on their own: - Cable theft is fraud - Fraud is a Class Z crime - Class Z crimes have this sentencing range I guess I can see how that happens.
- ikiris 3y ago
  its much more that theft of service is generally treated as an actual crime, and the franchise situations especially due to the costs led to them pushing for laws with real teeth instead of civil penalties that are pointless on poor people.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Someone actually wrote 6 months, it's the same statute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/553#:~:text=For%20the%20purpose%20of%20this,in%20violation%20of%20subparagraph%20(1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/553#:~:text=For%2...
torstenvl 3y ago
This comment is deeply inappropriate. Engaging in ideological flamewar is against HN guidelines and is just plain rude to all of the HN folks who actually work in the field you're being casually dismissive of.
- phinnaeus 3y ago
  Genuinely trying to understand your point of view. How is this potentially offensive to anyone other than the lawmaker who decides that cable theft should carry such a harsh sentence? I don't understand how this could be construed as derogatory toward, for example, people who work at a cable company.
- mabbo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    > I wonder if there's any good data on the sentencing for cable theft broken down by race. If there were, that would arguably be good content for HN. In the absence of such data, completely baseless allegations of systemic racism are ideological flamewar and do not belong here.
    - stonogo 3y ago
      In what world is "I wonder if" a "baseless allegation"? It seems to me we're still several steps away from alleging anything and you're going off half-cocked.
    - profile53 3y ago
      > completely baseless allegations of systemic racism Pretty much all scientific literature in the last 40 years agrees that there is systemic racism throughout the legal system. Your choice not to believe it does not make most existing scientific research ‘an ideological flame war’.
- profile53 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
erosenbe0 3y ago
Certainly it is a crime in Canada too, so I think the answer is no---theft of telecommunications is broadly criminalized to prevent mafia-type involvement.
dylan604 3y ago
I once "heard a story" about a very smart white guy that was retired special forces--just to put this racial thing to bed. Anyway, this guy lived in a subdivision that did not get cable. The cable company said there were not enough subscribers to justify the expense of the construction to bring them service. So mister special forces takes it upon himself to string a cable himself, and then decided to bring cable to the rest of the subdivision. After getting caught and arrested, part of his restitution was to make a PSA with him on camera in handcuffs saying something like "stealing cable is a crime" or something to that effect.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Did this happen in the lower mainland?
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Oklahoma
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  > just to put this racial thing to bed n=1

erosenbe0 3y ago

Copyright is a property right. It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges. This is not strictly done in service of big media---if organized crime rings come in to town and do a ton of rogue hookups with impunity, then the cable company leaves and you have a cycle of degradation in the quality of life. Preventing organized crime is why it is a federal offense. Of course, the judicial system ought to utilize its authority with discretion so as not to severely punish simple petty thefts. Also note that cable theft (e.g., the physical tampering element) can damage emergency communication lines and can create dangerous electrical problems.

hovden 3y ago
Copyright is not a property right. Property rights are derived from distinct legal and philosophical origins.
crazygringo 3y ago
> It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges. There is no theft. In the digital world there's merely copying, but in this case it was just tuning into an existing signal with a wire. Theft of property would require that you broke into HBO's office and stole the master tapes, for example.
- erosenbe0 3y ago
  Yes, thanks, as to copyright you are correct. I believe unless chattel is involved, it is called unauthorized reproduction and duplication rather than theft. As to the telecom aspect, it can go either way. In Canada, it is considered theft to use a telecommunications service without the rights to do so. Under USA federal criminal law, I believe it is just referred to as unauthorized reception.
cogman10 3y ago
> Copyright is a property right. It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges. Property theft and intellectual rights theft are two very different things. If I steal your car, you are now out a car and the use of a car. If I steal a copy of your artwork, you still have that artwork and can still sell copies of that artwork. I only start impacting your bottom line if I start selling copies. To the extent you are impacted by a copyright violation, you can be made whole with a market rate payment for the copies created and a penalty. That's what civil law is for. Wage theft has a much bigger negative impact on people's lives yet it's basically never criminally prosecuted. So why should copyright theft ever be criminally prosecuted? > Also note that cable theft (e.g., the physical tampering element) can damage emergency communication lines and can create dangerous electrical problems. Fair point, though I can't see why we'd punish that more harshly than we'd punish unauthorized digging (which is typically just civil to replace damaged lines.)

tzs 3y ago

It has nothing to do with copyright.

dylan604 3y ago
Right. Its using a service without paying for it which is theft if proven that it was done intentionally. Not sure how copyright was brought into this conversation.
- Zuiii 3y ago
  No, it can't be theft unless the service provider lost the channel being "stolen" to the "thief" which makes no sense. Things quickly become silly when we insist on using the wrong concept where it doesn't apply. Charges like disrupting business operations or unauthorized access I can see, but theft? nah.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Think of it as "theft of services". Here's one example... >ORS 164.125 >Theft of services >(2) ... “Communication service” includes, but is not limited to, use of telephone, computer and cable television systems. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125
    - Zuiii 3y ago
      I genuinely wonder what lead them to choose a word that, by definition, is so far removed from the concept being described? If we accept how this law wants to redefine Theft, then trespassing, squatting, illegal parking, and many other violations should now be called theft too since they involve using a resource in an unauthorized way and are actually depriving others from using the resource (which does not happen with cable modems). Spamming comments should also be called theft too since they're using server resource in an unauthorized way. But I have to submit: If discussed within the context of Theft of services in ORS 164.125, then I supposed the misuse of Theft can be excused. That said, I really don't think we as a society should humor or follow how some lobbyist or politician decide to misuses words.

cortesoft 3y ago

I was thinking about this. It is crazy that a private company gets to deputize the state legal apparatus to enable their business model. They want to be able to sell something that is very difficult to restrict access to, so they use the legal system to make sure it stays restricted. They want to be able to install a cable all the way to someone’s house, and then have the state prosecute them if they dare touch it.

wheybags 3y ago
> It is crazy that a private company gets to deputize the state legal apparatus to enable their business model. One could argue this is a major purpose of the state. When you can't deputize the state to resolve disputes, you get gang violence (see the drugs trade for more examples than you can count)
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  It just needs to be milder. A summary offence with a fine at worse. This is breach of contract not theft.

jaystraw 3y ago

Where I grew up north of Philadelphia in the 90's, the cable companies bid for municipalities and were given a monopoly -- I grew up with Lower Bucks Cablevision, for example. Since the local government got a cut, I would imagine that's why the penalties are/were harsh and criminal, as opposed to civil.