41–50 of 70 posts
"I discovered this neat new hack called 'fraud'"
Why fraud? If we are talking about criminal law, the requirements to convict a person are strict. In this case the author has not claimed neither on Patreon or YouTube to be someone he is not. He has not falsified any data/documents and has not stolen any account, since the one he claimed was available.
Sketchy? No doubts. Fraud? Doesn't seem like it at all.
"I discovered this neat new hack called 'fraud'"
Not legal advice. Why fraud? If we are talking about criminal law, the requirements to convict a person are strict. In this case the author has not claimed neither on Patreon or YouTube to be someone he is not. He has not falsified any data/documents and has not stolen any account, since the one he claimed was available. Sketchy? No doubts. Fraud? Doesn't seem like it at all.
I am not a lawyer, but using someone else picture and name sounds a bit of "claiming someone you're not" to me :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But if the intent all along was to return it the next day, stored safely the entire time, that's not theft. Legally, this isn't even remotely true. If you deprive someone of their legal possessions without permission, even with intent to return it later, you are guilty of theft. There is no loophole that allows you to temporarily steal things as long as you intend to return them. Intent only comes into play if the…
Permanent deprivation seems to be the more common standard as far as I can tell, not just deprivation. The difference isn't a loophole.
"I discovered this neat new hack called 'fraud'"
Not legal advice. Why fraud? If we are talking about criminal law, the requirements to convict a person are strict. In this case the author has not claimed neither on Patreon or YouTube to be someone he is not. He has not falsified any data/documents and has not stolen any account, since the one he claimed was available. Sketchy? No doubts. Fraud? Doesn't seem like it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The writer at the end refunds the money and messages Patreon to fix the issue, I think that would go massively in his favour in the rare change it ended up in front of a judge.
Legal consequences aren't the only form of consequences. In this post the author mentions their (legitimate) business. If I was a potential customer looking into said business and found this post I would be very offput by the lack of morals. The strongest condemnation we receive for literal theft is they "didn't want to", the author barely even seems to understand why their behavior is immoral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Permanent deprivation seems to be the more common standard as far as I can tell, not just deprivation. The difference isn't a loophole.
No, theft is theft, regardless of whether or not you return the item later. There is no loophole that allows people to temporarily steal things as long as they kindly return them later.
See the model penal code[1] "(1) "deprive" means: (a) to withhold property of another permanently or for so extended a period as to appropriate a major portion of its economic value, or with intent to restore only upon payment of reward or other compensation"
See [2] which mentions the "permanent" requirement three times.
[1] https://archive.org/details/ModelPenalCode_ALI/page/n207/mod...
[2] https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/theft-over...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Permanent deprivation seems to be the more common standard as far as I can tell, not just deprivation. The difference isn't a loophole.
No, theft is theft, regardless of whether or not you return the item later. There is no loophole that allows people to temporarily steal things as long as they kindly return them later.
Theft generally (specific statutes may vary!) requires intent to permanently deprive; if you don’t have that, its not theft.
It may be another crime, and its almost certainly the tort of trespass to chattels, so its not “allowed”.