Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

telecom.csail.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 486 posts

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#41

Post by torstenvl »

Larrikin wrote: post #18
cogman10 wrote: post #17

I thought this might be fiction because the amount of time for pirating cable seemed crazy.. However [1] there are indeed up to 6 month penalties for stealing cable. That's just ludicrous. How could copyright theft ever be anything other than a civil action? Jail time for stealing cable, that's just insane. Nobody gets hurt from stolen cable. We really need to look long and hard at what we allow jail time for. Jail t…

[flagged]

This comment is deeply inappropriate. Engaging in ideological flamewar is against HN guidelines and is just plain rude to all of the HN folks who actually work in the field you're being casually dismissive of.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#42

Post by wyldfire »

owenmarshall wrote: post #16

I feel like this story could be titled “In Which a Smart Person Overestimates Their Competency With The Legal System” Always get a lawyer.

But ... he didn't need a lawyer. He needed to threaten litigation but you don't need an attorney to do that for you.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#43

Post by ikiris »

mwint wrote: post #33
Larrikin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I wonder if it’s a thing where no one ever actually wrote “cable theft is a 6mo max sentence”, but rather a serious of things that seem reasonable on their own: - Cable theft is fraud - Fraud is a Class Z crime - Class Z crimes have this sentencing range I guess I can see how that happens.

its much more that theft of service is generally treated as an actual crime, and the franchise situations especially due to the costs led to them pushing for laws with real teeth instead of civil penalties that are pointless on poor people.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#44

Post by extraduder_ire »

AaronM wrote: post #32
emodendroket wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I've had similar thoughts about the Hertz debacle where people were thrown in jail for having rented cars and used them as agreed. I don't think if I made a phone call to the local police department and told them so-and-so stole my car they'd throw them in jail without asking any questions (at least I hope not). Why is Hertz any different?

Growing up my best friend dated a girl with very strict parents, who did not approve of the relationship. He was pulled over and arrested for grand theft auto. Spent three days in jail until she was convinced to make a statement at the police station and they let him go. Parents reported the car, which they must have owned, as stolen, and gave my friends description to police

I think that one is actually "malicious prosecution", as described in the article.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#45

Post by phinnaeus »

torstenvl wrote: post #41
Larrikin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This comment is deeply inappropriate. Engaging in ideological flamewar is against HN guidelines and is just plain rude to all of the HN folks who actually work in the field you're being casually dismissive of.

Genuinely trying to understand your point of view. How is this potentially offensive to anyone other than the lawmaker who decides that cable theft should carry such a harsh sentence?

I don't understand how this could be construed as derogatory toward, for example, people who work at a cable company.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#46

Post by mabbo »

torstenvl wrote: post #41
Larrikin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This comment is deeply inappropriate. Engaging in ideological flamewar is against HN guidelines and is just plain rude to all of the HN folks who actually work in the field you're being casually dismissive of.

[flagged]

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#47

Post by sulam »

wyldfire wrote: post #42
owenmarshall wrote: post #16

I feel like this story could be titled “In Which a Smart Person Overestimates Their Competency With The Legal System” Always get a lawyer.

But ... he didn't need a lawyer. He needed to threaten litigation but you don't need an attorney to do that for you.

(she)

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#48

Post by extraduder_ire »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #23
owenmarshall wrote: post #16

I feel like this story could be titled “In Which a Smart Person Overestimates Their Competency With The Legal System” Always get a lawyer.

= always have $10,000+ liquid on hand in case you need to?

"on hand" being metaphorical here, because if you actually have anywhere near that amount of cash some cop could civil asset forfeiture you.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#49

Post by owenmarshall »

emodendroket wrote: post #25
owenmarshall wrote: post #16

I feel like this story could be titled “In Which a Smart Person Overestimates Their Competency With The Legal System” Always get a lawyer.

It does seem like it would have saved a lot of heartache to have just coughed up the money for an attorney but that in itself is unfair -- it's a significant enough expense and for some is likely to be out of reach altogether.

Yep, it absolutely sucks. And while the average person in this circumstance has some limited recourse, they certainly have no guarantee of being made whole.

But here’s the rub: I’ve seen very intelligent people run up against the legal system before - some civil cases, some criminal. The ones that came out well were the ones that realized their opponent was an uncaring machine designed to grind people into dust in a competition whose rules they found alien. The others thought they didn’t need an attorney, and that their intellect would carry the day.

Totally unfair. Biased against plenty of disadvantaged people, even. Sucks, but them’s the breaks.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#50

Post by torstenvl »

mabbo wrote: post #46
torstenvl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is deeply inappropriate. Engaging in ideological flamewar is against HN guidelines and is just plain rude to all of the HN folks who actually work in the field you're being casually dismissive of.

[flagged]

> I wonder if there's any good data on the sentencing for cable theft broken down by race.

If there were, that would arguably be good content for HN.

In the absence of such data, completely baseless allegations of systemic racism are ideological flamewar and do not belong here.

Post reply on HN