Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 36321	2003-08-06 04:40:00	The "Sky" thing	John Grieve (367)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
165815	2003-08-10 10:12:00	Fair enough agent, but you were sending mixed messages and that is always a risky business when taking the moral high ground . Incidentally, it is not as easy as you might think to circumvent paying for services . Energy company computers will pick up any significant reduction in power consumption, so that rules out bypassing meters, though some do try, including those who install spa pools or electric heating for swimming pools and power them off the input to the meter . There is no change in their power consumption but they still get caught . To steal use of a telephone line is even harder, but rorting airtime on a prepaid cellphone might be possible . Viewing TV without a licence required an Act of Parliament to make it illegal, but the Government was the owner of the service . I don't know where privately owned broadcasters stand . And finally, copyright is about unauthorised copying, transmission or sale for financial gain . Nobody gets prosecuted for reading copyright material, watching copyright movies or other video media or listening to copyright music, regardless of the country of origin . IMO it is where the copy they are using came from that seems to matter most and the sound recording industry has got closest to success with Napster etc but that took the laws and courts of another country to achieve . I don't think that decoding Sky transmissions would classify as theft though I'm not qualified to justify that opinion, and I guess that is what this thread is all about . Cheers Billy 8-{) :|	Billy T (70)
165816	2003-08-10 10:27:00	:8} :8} :8} Thanks for setting that right Billy, I was a little curious as to why we were still tinkering with a 62 ver when technology and provider models had moved some way from what they were then, moot . I'll have a wander through the 1994 one and catch up on the thread . Cheers Murray P	Murray P (44)
165817	2003-08-10 11:49:00	Howdy John, While this is not specific to your question, it may be of interest, especially as the courts will often use existing laws to cover unusual crimes ;) The site I visited was the Law Commission (http://www.lawcom.govt.nz) and specific details have been extracted from the proposed amendments relating to misuse of computers R54. So far as gaining access to electronic data is concerned, s 248 of the Crimes Act 1961 relates to impersonation and therefore covers part of the continuum involving access to electronic data. Use of electronic data is currently dealt with by provisions relating to theft (s 220 Crimes Act 1961) although, as we pointed out in "Dishonestly Procuring Valuable Benefits" (NZLC R51 1998) there is a lacuna in the law in relation to theft of an intangible thing such as a chose in action. Section 218 of the Crimes Act 1961 deals with of electricity. Section 264 of the Crimes Act 1961 (with a restrictive definition of the term "document" contained in s 263 of the same Act) deals with forgery of documents. Finally, there are the general fraud provisions contained in s 229A of the Crimes Act 1961. Fraudulent alteration or destruction may be covered by ss 231 and 266A of the Crimes Act 1961. The offence of willful damage under s 298 (4) of the Crimes Act 1961 may also be relevant. 18 Examples of unauthorised interception of electronic data include: communication channel interuption and pass through - where the channel is physically breached and the attacker siphons off (or records) data and passses it back to the channel so that the data can continue to the original destination. The receiver would normally be unaware of this type of interception; diverting a transmission via a duplicate channel - physically splitting the signal so that two or more copies are being transmitted simultaneously, one to the original destination and one to the attacker; SNIP electromagnetic emanations - surreptiously gaining emanations via an induction coil, radio receiver or other device and translating them into usable forms.	Gorela (901)
165818	2003-08-10 12:00:00	Sat there, John. I have read right through the 41 postings on this debate with interest, and yet so far the words : "intellectual property rights" have not appeared. Just thought that you may like to drop them into your search engine to see what you come up with. Keep me posted, as I would be interested in the results :D	eef2 (1904)
165819	2003-08-10 12:48:00	Every one of those comes close in some way without actually hitting the mark but they give a feel for how things might be done. It"s really a case of out of date law applied to something that could not be imagined when the law was passed. I do however feel that while the "Dishonestly Procuring Valuable Benefits" idea looks good on the surface one must wonder if broadcasters could in fact prove to anyone viewing television is a "Valuable Benefit" to anyone :D :D And I would dare them to try :D	John Grieve (367)
165820	2003-08-10 22:38:00	I guess the value of the benefit would be determined by the sum of money one willing consumer was prepared to pay to have their brain bled out through their backside . Whatever the subscription is would be the perceived value of the loss, but of course that makes "illegal" decoding small beans and thus not really worthy of court action on an individual viewer basis . Suppliers of systems for decoding are a bigger target and represent much greater potential loss . Where the operators or owners of the system get their clout is by serving papers on individuals by way of civil action . If you do not defend yourself they will almost certainly win damages plus costs, and you can bet that costs will be on a client-solicitor basis, not on scale . By that I mean you pretty much pay the costs incurred in suing you rather than a small percentage . With top corporate Barristers charging sums in excess of $400 per hour, I am sure you get the picture . Some years ago I was involved in a defence against a claim of copyright breach . The claim was malicious and entirely without foundation, but the company still spent nearly $40,000 on preparing its defence . That's around $65-70,000 in today's money . The matter was settled in mediation with the claimants losing the argument (always a foregone conclusion, they went down like a squadron of burning spitfires) and were forced to pay some costs but nothing like what had been expended . However, it was cheaper to mediate and take that loss than to proceed to court, win a pyrric victory and lose even more money as the costs awarded would not have covered the extra expenditure . The point of that little vignette is this: A big corporation can put a stop to even lawful actions by individuals or small companies by investing a small sum in filing legal action based on a "broad" interpretation of the applicable law . Fear of the costs or consequences of defending will usually cause the innocent victim to settle out of court, possible even at some cost . It is abuse of process but who said bullies had to play by the rules? So, if anybody is decoding sky transmissions, provided they don't sing about it they will probably enjoy free access until such time as the technology changes and puts an end to their fun . They are undetectable and thus unstoppable . Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
165821	2003-08-11 07:25:00	> I guess the value of the benefit would be determined > by the sum of money one willing consumer was prepared > to pay to have their brain bled out through their > backside. Rotflol, shyte in shyte out as the saying goes, it begs the question of intellectual property as posed by a previous poster. Could judicious use of a stopper preserve the IQ of society. > Where the operators or owners of the system get their > clout is by serving papers on individuals by way of > civil action. Shades of the SCO fiasco, trying to scare some money out of big and small alike although their goose is burnt I think. Cheers Murray P	Murray P (44)
1 2 3 4 5