7 ms·

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 insis

by 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.
tzs 3y ago
It is defined as theft under the laws of several states. Here are links to a few states' theft of services statutes. Pennsylvania: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.026.000..HTM https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.02... Texas: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-31-04/ https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-31-04/ New York: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/165.15 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/165.15 Oregon: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125
- UweSchmidt 3y ago
  As the other commenter said, "private company gets to deputize the state legal apparatus".
  - marcus0x62 3y ago
    You could make that argument about almost any criminal statute where the victim is a corporation of some sort. Another way to describe it is "private company gets a mechanism to deter people from taking the value they create without paying for it."
    - omniglottal 3y ago
      Not all the value going over those lines is created by the cable company. In fact, very little of it is, and it can only exist on the vast majority of its path with taxpayer support.
      - marcus0x62 3y ago
        So what? They still have fixed and variable costs for delivering their product. You don’t get to take it for free just because some other entity creates the content they deliver.
        UweSchmidt 3y ago
        Point was, what should be a civil matter is a criminal matter instead. With jail.
        marcus0x62 3y ago
        I don’t see what that has to do with what the previous commenter said about the cable companies not creating “all the value” going over their lines. In any case, in the United States, theft of service is generally treated as a criminal matter. I don’t see why this should be treated any differently, or how it would be fair to single cable companies out for exclusion from protection for having their service taken for free. Inn Keepers, other utility companies, and many other businesses enjoy the same or similar protections for their services.
dylan604 3y ago
>No, it can't be theft Survey says...XXX Texas Penal Code Section 31.04 - Theft of Service https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_31.04 https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_31...
- Zuiii 3y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37401155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37401155 (raises the same point)
kelnos 3y ago
"Theft" doesn't just mean "physically taking something away from someone else, who now no longer has it". As much as you might like it to mean that, that's not what the law says.
- b112 3y ago
  On top of that, it takes equipment, hardware, personnel, infrastructure, power to deliver cable. The OP literally has no idea what they are talking about, and could use the same logic for electricity theft.
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    There's a subtle but very important difference. Electricity theft does extract a resource from the grid (electricity provider needs to supply the energy you're using on the other end). Similarly, phreaking uses phone lines which is a finite resource too (and phone company would rather keep those available for paying customers). Cable on the other hand runs all channels to your household in the first place. By removing the filter, you aren't creating any additional load on the cable network or using any additional resources for free.
    - b112 3y ago
      One might argue that when viewed, there is current draw, and that additional channels typically means more viewing. But I was thinking of overall service theft, and did not think of the filter. That case is different. This makes me think, though. I lived through this time, and adding the filter makes zero logistic sense. EG, why have anyone, who isn't paying, even connected? Then I remembered something. I lived in a house, where there was a shared box for 2 units. Someone had pried open the box, and removed the filters. As a result, the cable guy disconnected the wire at the pole. This resulted in something different. Instead of a cutoff, most channels came through, just very fuzzy. And as a kid, I lived in a rural area, and we owned an antenna booster/amp, which had made signals poorer than this, crystal clear. It seemed that leaving an uncapped end inside a box on the pole, with loads of signal, bled enough for a usable signal to get through. So this is probably why a filter was placed. And of course, to prevent the long wire from picking up local over the air stuff too. Ah well.

by Zuiii 3y ago

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.

tzs 3y ago

It is defined as theft under the laws of several states. Here are links to a few states' theft of services statutes. Pennsylvania: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.026.000..HTM https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.02... Texas: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-31-04/ https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-31-04/ New York: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/165.15 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/165.15 Oregon: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125 https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125

UweSchmidt 3y ago
As the other commenter said, "private company gets to deputize the state legal apparatus".
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  You could make that argument about almost any criminal statute where the victim is a corporation of some sort. Another way to describe it is "private company gets a mechanism to deter people from taking the value they create without paying for it."
  - omniglottal 3y ago
    Not all the value going over those lines is created by the cable company. In fact, very little of it is, and it can only exist on the vast majority of its path with taxpayer support.
    - marcus0x62 3y ago
      So what? They still have fixed and variable costs for delivering their product. You don’t get to take it for free just because some other entity creates the content they deliver.
      - UweSchmidt 3y ago
        Point was, what should be a civil matter is a criminal matter instead. With jail.
        marcus0x62 3y ago
        I don’t see what that has to do with what the previous commenter said about the cable companies not creating “all the value” going over their lines. In any case, in the United States, theft of service is generally treated as a criminal matter. I don’t see why this should be treated any differently, or how it would be fair to single cable companies out for exclusion from protection for having their service taken for free. Inn Keepers, other utility companies, and many other businesses enjoy the same or similar protections for their services.

dylan604 3y ago

>No, it can't be theft Survey says...XXX Texas Penal Code Section 31.04 - Theft of Service https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_31.04 https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_31...

Zuiii 3y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37401155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37401155 (raises the same point)

kelnos 3y ago

"Theft" doesn't just mean "physically taking something away from someone else, who now no longer has it". As much as you might like it to mean that, that's not what the law says.

b112 3y ago
On top of that, it takes equipment, hardware, personnel, infrastructure, power to deliver cable. The OP literally has no idea what they are talking about, and could use the same logic for electricity theft.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  There's a subtle but very important difference. Electricity theft does extract a resource from the grid (electricity provider needs to supply the energy you're using on the other end). Similarly, phreaking uses phone lines which is a finite resource too (and phone company would rather keep those available for paying customers). Cable on the other hand runs all channels to your household in the first place. By removing the filter, you aren't creating any additional load on the cable network or using any additional resources for free.
  - b112 3y ago
    One might argue that when viewed, there is current draw, and that additional channels typically means more viewing. But I was thinking of overall service theft, and did not think of the filter. That case is different. This makes me think, though. I lived through this time, and adding the filter makes zero logistic sense. EG, why have anyone, who isn't paying, even connected? Then I remembered something. I lived in a house, where there was a shared box for 2 units. Someone had pried open the box, and removed the filters. As a result, the cable guy disconnected the wire at the pole. This resulted in something different. Instead of a cutoff, most channels came through, just very fuzzy. And as a kid, I lived in a rural area, and we owned an antenna booster/amp, which had made signals poorer than this, crystal clear. It seemed that leaving an uncapped end inside a box on the pole, with loads of signal, bled enough for a usable signal to get through. So this is probably why a filter was placed. And of course, to prevent the long wire from picking up local over the air stuff too. Ah well.