Theft of cable... or is it?

[wisco]

So my question is the result of a friendly argument I had over some beers with a friend last night. This may be a bit long, so bear with me.

My friend informs me over the course of conversation last night that a mutual friend of ours is "stealing cable tv".

To make a long story short, the person in question has cable internet which he pays for. The cable company installed a filter in his box, allowing for internet frequencies to pass through but blocking TV frequencies. He simply removed the filter, resulting in him being able to watch all of the basic tv channels... in our area this is something like 1-69. No digital, HD, or any of the other stuff.

I countered that I don't think this is actually theft. Assume I was the person in question, my reasoning is this: My cable box is attached to my house. I own the property and anything attached to it. That being said, I believe it is within my rights to modify it any way I see fit. I'm not doing anything that poses a "code violation" (like a public safety hazard - cutting into gas lines or something like that) nor am I say cutting into the poles in the street to steal service. I'm utilizing something that is already mine.

To use a similar, and legal, example I would point to the "jailbreaking" of cell phones. To oversimplify this, it means modifying a cell phone to utilize services for free that a cell carrier would normally charge for - such as wireless tethering. The US Supreme Court has ruled this to be legal, as once the person has purchased the phone it is their property and therefore their right to modify it. (you can find more information here if your curious: U.S. Copyright Office - Anticircumvention Rulemaking) I did this to my own phone to use a service that my cell company wants to charge $30/month for. The cell companies don't like it, but there's nothing they can do about it.


So again, using the above example I do not see how modifying property that you already own to catch an analog, non-encrypted signal is theft.

Has anyone ever dealt with something like this?

[MikeG]

It's theft.

There was a case of a person who had power lines running over his property. He installed an antenna to take radiated energy and use it for his own use. Unlike your example he didn't even have to touch the power companies equipment. He claimed the that the power was being radiated to his property and so he had rights to it. courts disagreed. Theft of service.

In AZ, here are relevant defs of theft:
2. Converts for an unauthorized term or use services or property of another entrusted to the defendant or placed in the defendant's possession for a limited, authorized term or use;

6. Obtains services known to the defendant to be available only for compensation without paying or an agreement to pay the compensation or diverts another's services to the person's own or another's benefit without authority to do so.


Even the case you cite requires the operator of the network to authorize access. That's not the case here as the network operator has not authorized access to TV signals.

Your case would be applicable if the person had purchased basic cable service but rather than renting a box, he buys his own and attaches it. This is well established since the the 1970's when people were able to purchase phones instead of renting/leasing from AT&T.

[wisco]

It's theft.

There was a case of a person who had power lines running over his property. He installed an antenna to take radiated energy and use it for his own use. Unlike your example he didn't even have to touch the power companies equipment. He claimed the that the power was being radiated to his property and so he had rights to it. courts disagreed. Theft of service.

There has to be more to this, do you have a link? I would argue that "over the property" is the key thing here. Planes fly over my property all the time, I obviously do not own them. However, when something is attached to my house.... see what I mean?

In AZ, here are relevant defs of theft:
2. Converts for an unauthorized term or use services or property of another entrusted to the defendant or placed in the defendant's possession for a limited, authorized term or use;

This sounds to me like modifying equipment that is technically owned by the provider - such as dvr's or satellite boxes, which I totally agree with. You're just leasing it from them.


Gotta break your next one up, Ill adress this part first:

diverts another's services to the person's own or another's benefit without authority to do so.

Understandable, this sounds like plugging an extension cord into my neighbors house and stealing electricity.

But this part:

6. Obtains services known to the defendant to be available only for compensation

Indeed this would characterize it as theft.

But the thing is this: cable signals are analog. They can't block them at the source, so they have to be blocked on the receiving end. Therefore they have to affix a device physically to my home. Well... it is what it is: My home. I can remove any device attached to my home that I want. I would venture to say if the cable company doesn't like it then disconnect the line at the pole. I have no control over that, but I have every right to what is attached to my house. It's not my fault their system is designed the way it is.

Even the case you cite requires the operator of the network to authorize access.

Well yes, in a way. My cell wouldn't work without access to the network. But there is no legal requirement for me to pay extra $$ to the provider to give me services that my phone is capable of doing with modification. Technically, to wirelessly tether my phone that service needs to be activated by my provider. I have circumvented that as I own the phone, and it's perfectly legal.

Your case would be applicable if the person had purchased basic cable service but rather than renting a box, he buys his own and attaches it. This is well established since the the 1970's when people were able to purchase phones instead of renting/leasing from AT&T.

But see, he is authorized access because he does have and pay for cable internet. He has since modified modified his own property to recieve an additional service that is already being sent to his house regardless.

[wisco]

I'll give you another example along the same lines: Cable modems.

Years ago when broadband first started hitting the market, users were "licensed" to have ONE computer attached. If you wanted additional computers you were supposed to pay extra. Modems only provide one MAC address, therefore ONE instance of access to the network.

How did users who had multiple computers get around this? ROUTERS. Internet companies initially threw a fit if they found out. You were using more than you were "authorized" for.

But again it came down to personal property. They had no control or legal grounds over what users did in their own homes.

Now how many homes have routers today? ;)

[wisco]

How did users who had multiple computers get around this? ROUTERS. Internet companies initially threw a fit if they found out. You were using more than you were "authorized" for.

But again it came down to personal property. They had no control or legal grounds over what users did in their own homes.

Here are 2 links from old internet discussions referencing these very activities, and how people were supposedly "ripping off" their cable companies. One is from 2003, the other 2001:

Can my ISP block my router [Archive] - Overclockers Forums
Add Multiple Computers to Your Cable or DSL Modem

A users comment from the second one, my emphasis added:

"I LOVE YOU GUYS!!! I REALLY, REALLY LOVE YOU GUYS!!! I used to have DSL hooked up to my router and had a nice network going for me, but then I switched to a cable modem and my network fell apart. I've been struggling for almost a year trying to figure out how to use my router with the cable modem and bring up my home network again...every attempt failed. The best part is that the cable company isn't getting any extra money from me...they are already charging me an arm and a leg for their services, at least now I feel compensated. I love you guys and for the info you have posted on how to Hijack the Connection"


All they were doing was modifying property that was already theirs. The cable companies whined and screamed, and tried to block routers from being used, but ultimately failed as they had no right. Now they'll sell you the damn router.

[MikeG]

You absolutely cannot remove devices used to provide those services. The filter is part of the terms of service. If you were correct, everyone would be replacing their electric meter with a bypass. The meter is attached to your home but if you alter it in order to get electricity that you have not paid for, it's theft. The cable filter is not yours, it belongs to the cable company. If you remove the filter to gain services you have not paid for, it's illegal.

The router example is one that again has clear precedent. You have paid for internet access. The cable company can regulate how much data and speed, but not how as it's passed their equipment. Likewise, if you add a TV to your home, you can connect it to the services you paid for.

[wisco]

You absolutely cannot remove devices used to provide those services.

I disagree, explained below.

The filter is part of the terms of service. If you were correct, everyone would be replacing their electric meter with a bypass. The meter is attached to your home but if you alter it in order to get electricity that you have not paid for, it's theft. The cable filter is not yours, it belongs to the cable company. If you remove the filter to gain services you have not paid for, it's illegal.

Electricity is entirely different. It is a metered service in which the amount you pay is based on the amount you use. Higher usage on your end results in higher costs to the distributor. If you are falsifying the data associated with that, you are in fact ripping off the company and committing a theft.

An analog signal from a cable company is sent to every connected house regardless. There is no difference in cost to the distributor whether your home is accessing it or not. Hell, they can't even tell if your connected - it's analog.

Nobody may remove or affix a device to my physical house without my permission - gas companies and electric companies included. Once it is attached, however, it becomes my property. If they stick a filter in a box on my property, I can remove it. I can take the whole box off my house if I so choose. I can tear the cable off and make a jump rope out of it - do you see what I'm saying?

The router example is one that again has clear precedent. You have paid for internet access. The cable company can regulate how much data and speed, but not how as it's passed their equipment. Likewise, if you add a TV to your home, you can connect it to the services you paid for.

You just said it.

Once that line hits my house, it is MINE. That is why ISP's cannot take legal action against you for using a router. It is also why I think, in the aforementioned scenario, it is not theft. The signal is being sent there, then blocked by a device ON THE PROPERTY. It's his property to do with as he wishes.

If the cable company had any intelligence they would install the filter at the poll. If he removed it there, I would then say that is theft. It would be no different than if he went and spliced into a cable line from the street or his neighbors house.

[retdetsgt]

The cable company here routinely goes after and gets convictions on people who violate terms of service doing the exact things you describe.

When HBO started, it was all satellite and you had to buy a dish from them to receive. Immediately people started putting up their own dishes and taking the signal in for free. They were regularly prosecuted for it too. It is theft. People tried to argue that radio type transmissions put in the air were free, but that didn't fly when specific laws were passed. Same as it's legal to intercept commercial radio/tv transmissions, but not those from wireless or cell phones.

You can put up all sorts of philosophical arguments, but the courts have sided with the cable companies from day one. A couple of detectives I worked with retired and work full time for the cable company investigating such things. Yes, the transmissions are coming into your home, you have to pay for the services you receive.

My ISP has no problem with home routers, but you can only have one modem in your house. They probably would regulate routers if they could, but that would be an impossible task.

[Citicop]

Spin it however you want, Wisco.

That is convictable theft in my state.

Theft of cable television service, penalty.
570.300. 1. A person commits the crime of theft of cable television service if he:

(1) Knowingly obtains or attempts to obtain cable television service without paying all lawful compensation to the operator of such service, by means of artifice, trick, deception or device; or

(2) Knowingly assists another person in obtaining or attempting to obtain cable television service without paying all lawful compensation to the operator of such service; or

(3) Knowingly connects to, tampers with or otherwise interferes with any cables, wires or other devices used for the distribution of cable television if the effect of such action is to obtain cable television without paying all lawful compensation therefor; or

(4) Knowingly sells, uses, manufactures, rents or offers for sale, rental or use any device, plan or kit designed and intended to obtain cable television service in violation of this section; or

(5) Knowingly attempts to connect to, tamper with, or otherwise interfere with any cable television signal, cables, wires, devices, or equipment, which is used for the distribution of cable television and which results in the unauthorized use of a cable television system or the disruption of the delivery of the cable television service. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit, restrict, or otherwise limit the purchase, sale, or use of any products, including without limitation hardware, software, or other items, intended to provide services and features to a customer who has lawfully obtained a connection from a cable company.

2. Theft of cable television service is a class C felony if the value of the service appropriated is five hundred dollars or more or if the theft is a violation of subdivision (5) of subsection 1 of this section, otherwise theft of cable television services is a class A misdemeanor.

3. Any cable television operator may bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of the provisions of this section or bring an action for conversion. In addition to any actual damages, an operator may be entitled to punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees in any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage. In the event of a defendant's verdict the defendant may be entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

4. The existence on the property and in the actual possession of the accused of any connection wire, or conductor, which is connected in such a manner as to permit the use of cable television service without the same being reported for payment to and specifically authorized by the operator of the cable television service shall be sufficient to support an inference which the trial court may submit to the trier of fact, from which the trier of fact may conclude that the accused has committed the crime of theft of cable television service.

5. If a cable television company either:

(1) Provides unsolicited cable television service; or

(2) Fails to change or disconnect cable television service within ten days after receiving written notice to do so by the customer, the customer may deem such service to be a gift without any obligation to the cable television company from ten days after such written notice is received until the service is changed or disconnected.

6. Nothing in this section shall be construed to render unlawful or prohibit an individual or other legal entity from owning or operating a video cassette recorder or devices commonly known as a satellite receiving dish for the purpose of receiving and utilizing satellite-relayed television signals for his own use.

7. As used in this section, the term "cable television service" includes microwave television transmission from a multipoint distribution service not capable of reception by conventional television receivers without the use of special equipment.

[retdetsgt]

This is Oregon's

§ 164.132¹
Unlawful distribution of cable television equipment
(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful distribution of cable television equipment if the person knowingly manufactures, imports into this state, distributes, sells, offers for sale, rental or use, possesses for sale, rental or use, or advertises for sale, rental or use, any device designed to make available the unauthorized reception of cable television signals.
(2) Unlawful distribution of cable television equipment is a Class B misdemeanor. [1985 c.537 §3]

§ 164.373¹
Tampering with cable television equipment
(1) A person commits the crime of tampering with cable television equipment if the person:
(a) Knowingly tampers or otherwise interferes with or connects to by any means, whether mechanical, electrical, acoustical or other means, any cable, wire or other device used for the distribution of cable television service, without authority of the provider of such service; or
(b) Knowingly permits another person to tamper or otherwise interfere with, or connect to by any means, whether mechanical, electrical, acoustical or other means, any cable, wire or other device used for the distribution of cable television service, such tampering, interfering or connecting being upon premises under the control of such first person or intended for the benefit of such first person, without authority of the provider of such service.
(2) Tampering with cable television equipment is a Class B misdemeanor. [1985 c.537 §5]

[wisco]

Citi and RDS -

Thanks for the statutes. But I'm going to try to play "lawyer" here


Both of the statutes you guys mentioned have a key word: distribution. And yes, I would say that messing with cable lines from a distribution point (ie: the pole, or the neighborhood "box") is theft. But at the junction on your home it becomes reception. The signal is already there.

I'm not trying to spin anything. I'm just explaining my position coming from working in the world of technology.

Also Citi, the statute you quoted says: "(2) Fails to change or disconnect cable television service within ten days after receiving written notice to do so by the customer, the customer may deem such service to be a gift without any obligation to the cable television company from ten days after such written notice is received until the service is changed or disconnected. "

Now unless they physically remove the line to the home, it is not disconnected. Rarely do I see cable companies actually do this.

[retdetsgt]

Here, the cable box inside your house is property of the cable company. What you connect to the "outlet" it is your business, but if you do anything to the box to change the signal coming out, that's illegal because it's not yours.

The law prevents you from connecting to anything other than that outlet.

Just to add, wisco. I have no doubt that every technical and philosophical argument you come up with has already been presented in court. The bottom line is, the company is selling a service. If you try to take that service without paying for it, it's morally, ethically and even legally theft.

[Citicop]

Citi and RDS -

Thanks for the statutes. But I'm going to try to play "lawyer" here


Both of the statutes you guys mentioned have a key word: distribution. And yes, I would say that messing with cable lines from a distribution point (ie: the pole, or the neighborhood "box") is theft. But at the junction on your home it becomes reception. The signal is already there.

I'm not trying to spin anything. I'm just explaining my position coming from working in the world of technology.

Also Citi, the statute you quoted says: "(2) Fails to change or disconnect cable television service within ten days after receiving written notice to do so by the customer, the customer may deem such service to be a gift without any obligation to the cable television company from ten days after such written notice is received until the service is changed or disconnected. "

Now unless they physically remove the line to the home, it is not disconnected. Rarely do I see cable companies actually do this.

I think that the operative word in your opening statement is PLAY.

None of those arguments would hold weight. The device he is tampering with *is* used in some regard for the distribition of cable television. To argue that the cable box through which the signal comes to your television is not used to distrubite cable television is a semantic game that would (and hasn't) held weight in any court I have heard of. If you have some case law to the contrary, feel free to share. I'd love to see it.

The statute further states that it is the SERVICE that needs to be disconnected in 10 days, not the physical equipment. That would also not stand up in court.

Your position (and advice) based on your tech background would likely get your friend arrested and convicted of a felony charge in my state depending on how long he's been doing it.

-Citicop.

[wisco]

Just to add, wisco. I have no doubt that every technical and philosophical argument you come up with has already been presented in court. The bottom line is, the company is selling a service. If you try to take that service without paying for it, it's morally, ethically and even legally theft.

Morally and ethically I agree. I don't particularly condone what the guy is doing. The only reason I'm questioning it is because it's very similar to things like the aforemmentioned "jailbreaking" which has been deemed legal.

Here in Wisconsin we also have property laws concerning what are called "permanent fixtures". When something is bolted to the structure of the house, it becomes part of the house and legally the property of the owner. For instance if you were a landlord and your tenant installed a new toilet with his own money, it becomes your toilet. He cannot remove it when he leaves. I would assume the same would apply when a cable company attaches a box to my house - it becomes mine.

I'll see if I can find the laws regarding that.

[retdetsgt]

Here in Wisconsin we also have property laws concerning what are called "permanent fixtures". When something is bolted to the structure of the house, it becomes part of the house and legally the property of the owner. For instance if you were a landlord and your tenant installed a new toilet with his own money, it becomes your toilet. He cannot remove it when he leaves. I would assume the same would apply when a cable company attaches a box to my house - it becomes mine.

I'll see if I can find the laws regarding that.

I suspect there's exception to that regarding utility franchises like there is here. Otherwise, it would be difficult to operate in that state if people could do what they wanted with their equipment.

Sort of like the cell and wireless phone signals are exception to the free radio waves laws.