5 ms·

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.u

by 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.
concordDance 3y ago
There may be a mismatch between the common meaning of a word and what the legal definition is.
smaudet 3y ago
Right, but nobody takes anything, the sticking point is the copyrighted content. Unless someone tries claim you are stealing electric current, this claim of theft is absurd - first you must attach a device to the cable, then spend your time watching said device (presuming it has a screen). Until that happens, it belies belief that you have "taken" anything. After that point, one must assume somehow this is content enriching your life somehow (dubious), or that you are recording and reselling content (which would be obvious fraud, at the copyright level). Before then, the fact is that another entity is blasting all content continuously on all their lines. That's not theft. I'm not arguing that people should be intentionally jacking into other people's wires, or saying cable should be free for everyone, just that the legal definition of theft here is absurd. That you can then be prosecuted for something you have not done by no fault of your own except malpratice of the people involved in originally laying the lines, is ridiculous and a sure sign if cronyism and protectionism, not one of a healthy judicial system.

by tzs 3y ago

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.

concordDance 3y ago

There may be a mismatch between the common meaning of a word and what the legal definition is.

smaudet 3y ago

Right, but nobody takes anything, the sticking point is the copyrighted content. Unless someone tries claim you are stealing electric current, this claim of theft is absurd - first you must attach a device to the cable, then spend your time watching said device (presuming it has a screen). Until that happens, it belies belief that you have "taken" anything. After that point, one must assume somehow this is content enriching your life somehow (dubious), or that you are recording and reselling content (which would be obvious fraud, at the copyright level). Before then, the fact is that another entity is blasting all content continuously on all their lines. That's not theft. I'm not arguing that people should be intentionally jacking into other people's wires, or saying cable should be free for everyone, just that the legal definition of theft here is absurd. That you can then be prosecuted for something you have not done by no fault of your own except malpratice of the people involved in originally laying the lines, is ridiculous and a sure sign if cronyism and protectionism, not one of a healthy judicial system.