Virgin media possibly getting serious on dodgy boxes?

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

Yeah.. I hope it is annoying them.. they need to keep this up and also think of otherways to disrupt their illegal activity!...

As Fatec pointed out, the autoupdate file has been patched. Anyone who has installed this patch wouldn't have even noticed the key changes today.

The only ones who will be getting annoyed are those that don't know how to install the patch. Shame.

.

[McMav]

Only thing VM can do is change the Nagra 1 encryption used to say Nagra 3 even then it has been hacked on the continent. Mind you if updating to this encryption coupled with a firmware update would speed up my shonky Samsung 2100 then . But a change in encryption will be costly to a company already 4.3 billion in the red as new cards would be required to be sent out at a cost and also the N3 encryption would cost them also. I would also think there would be the hassle to the normal subscriber as cards and boxes need to be paired so they could get some very angry customers if 1 their card does not turn up/is not paired correctly with their box. It also depends if they think it will actually increase revenue enough to make it worthwhile or if these people who take the signal atm and are on a basic subscription would move over to sky if they are forced to pay for TV as atm Sky has the best HD content available to watch (excluding On Demand from VM)

[Horace]

Originally Posted by McMav

Only thing VM can do is change the Nagra 1 encryption used to say Nagra 3 even then it has been hacked on the continent.

No it hasn't and CS doesn't count.

[McMav]

Originally Posted by Horace

No it hasn't and CS doesn't count.

Re read looks like its card sharing not encryption break. Did another search. Looks like it has been part compromised already.

[Olibubble]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Nope. Legally speaking it's not theft at all.

That depends on which court you wish to prosecute in.

Originally Posted by TheDon

It's an offence of "fraudulently receiving programmes" and is covered by the copyright act and not the theft act.

[
Theft requires you to permanantly deprive the owner of something.

Not true.

Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 actually covers this but it was repealed, but the the principle of obtaining pecuniary advantages (where you should have paid for something but didn't) remains in Theft Act 1978.

For the context of this thread, the relevant section would be;

Section 1.

Obtaining services by deception.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1978...9780031_en.pdf

VM could prosecute under either act (and relevant court) above. Of course the burden of proof is far greater in a criminal court, and the accused has the option of a trial by jury and the costs involved are prohibitive (and no g'tee of a conviction) compared the 51% needed in a civil court (where you can claim for damages and is a heck of a lot cheaper) hence the reason why organisations nearly always opt for the civil route.

It is indeed theft, as stated under section 1 of chapter 31 of the Theft Act 1978.

And for those who wish to understand this in real English rather than the jargon that is legalese here is a nice article regarding this from auntie beeb.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A580312


INAL ( )

PS, did anyone read the news today where a russian businessman trade marked the ; - ) and states that as : - ) and other deratives are similar they too fall under his licensing terms. Ho ho ho. Merry christmas (TM)

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Olibubble

That depends on which court you wish to prosecute in.

No. It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Olibubble

Not true.

Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 actually covers this but it was repealed, but the the principle of obtaining pecuniary advantages (where you should have paid for something but didn't) remains in Theft Act 1978.

For the context of this thread, the relevant section would be;

Section 1.

Obtaining services by deception.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1978...9780031_en.pdf

VM could prosecute under either act (and relevant court) above. Of course the burden of proof is far greater in a criminal court, and the accused has the option of a trial by jury and the costs involved are prohibitive (and no g'tee of a conviction) compared the 51% needed in a civil court (where you can claim for damages and is a heck of a lot cheaper) hence the reason why organisations nearly always opt for the civil route.

It is indeed theft, as stated under section 1 of chapter 31 of the Theft Act 1978.

And for those who wish to understand this in real English rather than the jargon that is legalese here is a nice article regarding this from auntie beeb.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A580312


INAL ( )

PS, did anyone read the news today where a russian businessman trade marked the ; - ) and states that as : - ) and other deratives are similar they too fall under his licensing terms. Ho ho ho. Merry christmas (TM)

3rd party boxes ARE NOT obtaining a service by deception. Deception would be telling them you'll pay for them, have them give you the services, and then not paying. It'd be something like sending them a fake cheque, it'd be doing anything where they believe you will be paying for the service, but then you fail to do so. There is no deception involved with connecting a 3rd party box as VM are not aware of the matter so can not have been decieved to the fact that you intended to pay.

This is the very reason why it's a specific crime in its own right, if it was covered in the theft act there wouldn't have been a need to create a seperate crime for it.

Even if it was covered by it it still wouldn't make it theft. The theft act covers far more crimes than just acts of theft, and very clearly defines theft, and thief in it's very first paragraph:

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly."

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by TheDon

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly."

And don't forget people that property is defined as:

Something owned; a possession.

1. 1. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
   2. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
   3. Possessions considered as a group.

my Bold

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Rob M

And don't forget people that property is defined as:

[/i]

my Bold

Waits for the ping pong match with the don and Rob M.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by Toto

Waits for the ping pong match with the don and Rob M.

I don't play games

Originally Posted by Toto

Waits for the ping pong match with the don and Rob M.

Surely you mean "whiff whaff"

To quote a former CF colleague .

Ok I think this thread has dramatically drifted from the VM dealing with dodgy boxes and into the rights and wrongs of the law as we see it. So everyone back to the topic of VM getting serious on dodgy boxes

Capeesh?

In other words this thread is not about whether it's theft or not..it's about Virgin Media's attempts to deal with illegal chipped boxes being used on their system.

[Escapee]

Is it still financially viable for Virgin to catch people with chipped boxes?

I ask that question because ntl used to make a token effort to catch these people, just enough to keep the program providers off their back. It was due to the fact that the program provider pricing to ntl meant more £ from a basic subscriber than they made from a customer taking a premium package.

In the older days customers who subscribed to the basic package but had a chipped box to receive premium services were a good money spinner for ntl, and the effort to catch them was mainly hot air.

Those legally paying for the full service earned the company less money than those stealing.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

it's about Virgin Media's attempts to deal with illegal chipped boxes being used on their system.

If that is the case, then all that needs to be said is Virgin WILL be taking steps to stop chipped boxes.

Just because they don't tell everyone what they are doing, doesn't mean they are ignoring the issue

[nutellajunkie]

oh boy, that tickles!

Originally Posted by Maggy J

To quote a former CF colleague .

Capeesh?

In other words this thread is not about whether it's theft or not..it's about Virgin Media's attempts to deal with illegal chipped boxes being used on their system.

As far as I am aware none of the boxes are chipped and they have not been since the analogue days. VM boxes are modified and 3rd party boxes are modified via firmware. Unless something has changed since last time anyone told me anything about them the only chips these boxes have seen come with a fish supper