TiVo Community Forums Archives - Ethical question: getting HBO for free

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

Ethical question: getting HBO for free
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: timckelley

For the last two years, my cable company has been accidentally giving me free HBO (one channel only). Is it unethical for me to watch it without telling them, or is it their fault for not transmitting to me what I ordered. Afterall, it's just another channel mixed into the signal which I didn't extort -- it's just there.

Posted by: JPriller

You already know this, but the right thing to do is call the cable company and let them know. It may not be what most people would do, but it's still the right thing.

Posted by: Sromkie

Legally, it is your responsibility to inform the MSO of their error. It is a bit silly that it works that way, but that is simply how it is. Worst case is that if you do not inform them, and they ever find out that you have the service, they can back date your billing to charge you for the service historically, for as long as they need to.

Of course, if you have an analog box, they will really have no way of ever knowing unless a.) you tell them, b.) a tech comes to your house to fix a problem and discovers that you receive HBO and they for some reason cared enough to know what channels that you subscribe to or c.) you return the box to the MSO and they check it and see that the setting for HBO is on, yet you aren't being billed for it. All of these chances are pretty slim, so really it comes down to how you feel about yourself after making an informed decision.

Posted by: timckelley

Well, actually, I have no box of any kind... it's just an analog cable coming into the house. But even if they knew I had it, couldn't I claim I didn't know I had it, and never asked to have it? By the way, if they start charging for it, I'd probably cancel it.

Posted by: timckelley

Well, I suppose ethically, if I'm watching it would be fair to be paying for it.

Posted by: timckelley

You know, actually, it used to be worse. For a year, I was getting Cinemax and HBO for free. Then when a tech came to the house to fix a severed line, he turned off Cinemax, but left HBO. (I've never paid for either.) It seems weird that they can't get their transmissions right. (My cable goes straight into my TiVo - no intervening box)

Posted by: phone1

If it's coming in on an analog channel the cable company is either not trapping it or unjamming it outside your house. (On the pole or in a pedestal.) An installer can look at it and know you are receiving it. Believe it or not they don't have to prove you actually watch it.

It's called passive theft, but it's still theft. Most cable companies aren't interested in alienating their customers over something this petty, so if it's ever discovered, they'll probably just remove it and notify you, or perhaps even offer to let you keep HBO and waive installation if you pay the additional monthly charge.

As discussed in another recent thread about DTV, it's not really a "victims" crime. The industry loses millions of dollars of potential revenue through piracy. That loss results in higher bills for those who pay. Now you may rationalize it by saying if you had to pay for it you wouldn't have HBO so you're not costing them anything. Fine if it helps you sleep at night I guess.

Why not just do the right thing: Switch to DTV (saw your other thread) and pay them for HBO? :)

Edit: Just read your previous post. It sounds like they are "trapping" the signal. Essentially they broadcast everything unscrambled. As I understand it installers have to carry multiple traps for every combination of premium channels. It sounds like he put the wrong one on, or didn't have the right one and never came back. Not surprising for guys who are neither highly paid nor skilled.

Posted by: Sromkie

Here is the most specific information that I could find related to this on the Time Warner site for Austin, TX...
"8. If Customer tampers with any of the Equipment or makes any unauthorized use of Time Warner Cable's service, Customer will be in breach of this Service Agreement, and Time Warner Cable may terminate Customer's service and take legal action against Customer as allowed by law."

I think this counts as unauthorized use of service...

The document also states: "3. It is Customer's responsibility to report billing errors immediately upon receipt so that service levels can be verified. Time Warner Cable will not reimburse a customer for incorrect charges not reported within 90 days of billing. In the case of a billing dispute, Time Warner Cable will respond to a billing complaint by Customer within thirty (30) days. If a credit on Customer's bill is warranted, Time Warner Cable will issue the credit no later than Customer's next billing cycle following the determination that a credit is warranted. Failure to receive a bill does not release a customer from payment obligations for services delivered"

Although this seems to more reflect what should be done in the event that the customer is getting charged for a service they are not receiving, what you are describing is still, in a sense, a billing error.

Posted by: timckelley

I think my neighbor explained it by saying inside a post in our front yard, there's a way to disable HBO and Cinemax. The default is to let it through. It sounds like he forgot to disable HBO.

This 'passive theft' doesn't seem right to me. If I truly weren't watching it, and didn't know I had it, and if the signal was being sent to me involuntarily thru no action of my own, it's hard to understand any legal liability on my part. But I admit, it's difficult to think of any analogy to defend this argument.

Posted by: timckelley

quote:
Originally posted by phone1
Why not just do the right thing: Switch to DTV (saw your other thread) and pay them for HBO? :)

I guess that it is a tempting idea.

Posted by: Sromkie

quote:
Originally posted by timckelley
This 'passive theft' doesn't seem right to me. If I truly weren't watching it, and didn't know I had it, and if the signal was being sent to me involuntarily thru no action of my own, it's hard to understand any legal liability on my part. But I admit, it's difficult to think of any analogy to defend this argument.

And that is why, in most cases, the MSO will not back charge you or press any formal charges... They don't want to alienate their subscribers and they know that their is a chance that you do not know the channel even comes in (although I would guess that most customers who are receiving premiums that they do not subscribe to have noticed and do watch the channels). Usually, what is done is that the MSO will call you or send you a letter stating that they have not been billing you for X service in the past, but will begin billing for it on X date. If you no longer wish to have the service, contact a customer service rep and discontinue the specific service.

Again, that is if they ever even notice.

However, passive theft indeed exists and they can enforce those laws if they wish to.

Posted by: JPriller

What does the law say about getting service you've told them you don't want?

I got DirecTV back in July and dropped my cable service back to "limited basic", just the local channels. They stopped billing me for the other channels starting in the middle of month, and even gave me a pro-rated credit for the part of the month I'd already paid for but didn't use.

A week later I noticed all the channels were still there, and I called to let them know. They said they'd get someone out to make the changes, thanks for the heads-up.

The other night I was setting up a DirecTV receiver on the basement TV, and noticed all the cable channels were still there, including the Showtime I'd once subscribed to.

I'll be calling them again to let them know, again. But I'm curious - if you've TOLD them to take the service off and they haven't, have they got any legal recourse if they wanted to get all pin-headed and nasty to you?

Posted by: Dennis Wilkinson

quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
I'll be calling them again to let them know, again. But I'm curious - if you've TOLD them to take the service off and they haven't, have they got any legal recourse if they wanted to get all pin-headed and nasty to you?

I think any reasonable individual would think that you'd met your requirement to notify them, as long as you could document it (and no, I ain't no lawyer.)

At our last house, we were getting HBO for free for some time. We did call to let them know, and in that instance, it was intentional: they had promised a lineup change bringing new and different channels and were way behind on updating the head-end, so they decided to give everyone HBO until the lineup change occurred (that was Cox cable.)

Posted by: mbalgeman

quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
But I'm curious - if you've TOLD them to take the service off and they haven't, have they got any legal recourse if they wanted to get all pin-headed and nasty to you?

I have no idea if this is true or not, but I believe it.
http://www.geocities.com/flutocracy/cablemodem.htm

Posted by: Sromkie

quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
But I'm curious - if you've TOLD them to take the service off and they haven't, have they got any legal recourse if they wanted to get all pin-headed and nasty to you?

That depends on how well documented the issue is. Basically there are two parties involved in the issue and each has the ability to document what happened. Agents in an providers call center *usually* add notes to their billing system each time you call detailing what the call was about. The quality of notes and how long they are saved really depends on what billing system is being used by the provider, but most accept pretty thorough notes (ICOMS, CSG-CCS and CSG-ACSR all accept detailed notes that are saved anywhere from 3 months to indefinitely - DST/CableData is very limited with comment storage, so if that is the system being used, any stored notes are most likely written over very quickly - There are other platforms available to providers, but those are definitely the most prevalent).

Basically, if you keep a log in a notebook or whatever that details what you asked for and when, the law would be on your side if the provider did not have any notes at all. If they have notes that contradict what you say and you do not have notes (which, by the way they are legally obligated to send you at any time if you request the notes on your account), the law could side with them, although, I can't see a provider pressing the issue in the case that you are describing. If neither of you have notes, or both have contradictory notes, then it's a mess and who knows how it will go, but most likely a provider won't want to go to court if they don't have to. They will most likely just remove the services.

However, the situation that you describe is indeed interesting. I am surprised to hear that your service has never been downgraded... there is no reason that would benefit them to ignore that request.

Posted by: phone1

quote:
Originally posted by JPriller
I'll be calling them again to let them know, again. But I'm curious - if you've TOLD them to take the service off and they haven't, have they got any legal recourse if they wanted to get all pin-headed and nasty to you?

Well, INAL, but send them a certified letter with a notary seal (your bank will do it for free) and keep a copy. You have no proof you called.

Of course you could have thrown the letter in the trash and sent them a blank sheet of paper, but I think they'd think twice before making a case. Plus the letter probably will get them removed. Of course if they're as clueless as my old cable company, you'll probably come home one day and find it completely disconnected.

Posted by: Stevo-DC

I used to get free HBO & Showtime. What happened is that I was getting really poor reception. I called District Cablevision (now comcast). The tech tried for hours to improve the signal, but nothing worked. He went back to the building's "cable-tv room" one last time and fixed the problem. When he came back he tried to get me to sign up for HBO and Showtime. I declined. He then told me that I'd be getting it for free because the only way to get good reception for me was to splice the cable from another apartment. Since they had HBO & Showtime, so would I. That lasted until I signed up for digital cable. It was nice that it was free, but I was always afraid that some guy in a dark suit would show up at my door.

Posted by: JPriller

quote:
Originally posted by Sromkie
However, the situation that you describe is indeed interesting. I am surprised to hear that your service has never been downgraded... there is no reason that would benefit them to ignore that request.

Never underestimate the power of clueless imbeciles, I've had a thought about what may have happened that I'll be letting the cable company know about.

Back when I subscribed to Showtime they said they'd come out and give it to us the next day, via some fiddling with the box on a pole down the street. A few days later my wife called to see why we didn't have it yet, they sent a guy out (a day or two later) who discovered the last installer had sent Showtime to the wrong house.

We live on a street with a 90-deg bend at the end, the North-South street has one name and the East-West street has another, and the numbers on both are 100-199. No matter how carefully you instruct pizza delivery guys they usually manage to find the wrong house, and new mail-carriers have the same difficulty. This is how I know my counterpart with the same house number on the other street so well.

You can see where this is going - I bet the bozos that came out to downgrade my cable downgraded my same-number neighbor instead, he's been staying at his cabin up north most of this summer and fall since he retired, and hasn't been home to notice.

Now that I think about it, this isn't the only time they've screwed this up. One day a number of years ago I discovered I was getting HBO. I called up the company and they said they'd look into it. Later that week I was talking to my same-number neighbor as we took a rest from mowing our lawns, and he complained that it'd been 10 days now and he still didn't have HBO...

Oh well. Guess I better give the cable bozos a call and see about getting it fixed. :)

Posted by: Moebius

I'll admit in my younger years (like back in college), I took advantage of a car wreck in the neighborhood that bent the casing of the street side distribution block. I slipped out one night and yanked the traps off the lines.

It actually got fun for a while because they were trying everything they could to avoid replacing the block, but they couldn't secure the cover. The tech finally came out, reset the traps (I left them partially connected to look like the car had knocked them loose) and tried securing the box with a zip tie. So, after a bit much to drink one night, I went out, cut the tie, removed the trap on every appartment on the block, and replaced it with another zip tie. We went back and forth like this for a while until I found a note in the box one night that said "Gimme a break will ya? You've had the services for 3 months now, and my schmuck bosses are too damn lazy to replace the unit." That struck me funny enough that I left him a thank you note and stopped bothering with it.

I suppose back then it was my way of getting even with "the system". Nowadays, I take more pride in calling to cancel my service instead. I've already switched phone, and will get the pleasure of calling to cancel the cable modem next week. Then if I'm lucky I'll be calling to tell them where to shove cable if I decide to get D*.

Posted by: HomeTheaterJock

quote:
Originally posted by Sromkie
Legally, it is your responsibility to inform the MSO of their error. It is a bit silly that it works that way, but that is simply how it is.

I'm not sure that is correct. I think it is ilegal for him to "intercept" the HBO signal by watching it without paying for it but if he doesn't watch it he has no obligation to communicate with the cable company.

Posted by: Sromkie

quote:
Originally posted by HomeTheaterJock
I'm not sure that is correct. I think it is ilegal for him to "intercept" the HBO signal by watching it without paying for it but if he doesn't watch it he has no obligation to communicate with the cable company.

No, he definitely is responsible for telling the MSO... whether or not he watches the channel. The point is that the signal is going to his home and he isn't paying for it. If I choose to pay for HBO and I don't watch it the MSO isn't going to send me a letter stating that they are going to credit my account. I know for a fact that legally it is his responsibility, I have worked with almost any major cable company that you could name as well as one of the major satellite providers and the rules are pretty ingrained in my head.

Posted by: HomeTheaterJock

quote:
Originally posted by Sromkie
No, he definitely is responsible for telling the MSO... whether or not he watches the channel. The point is that the signal is going to his home and he isn't paying for it. If I choose to pay for HBO and I don't watch it the MSO isn't going to send me a letter stating that they are going to credit my account. I know for a fact that legally it is his responsibility, I have worked with almost any major cable company that you could name as well as one of the major satellite providers and the rules are pretty ingrained in my head.

I understand that the National Cable and Telecommunications association defines "Passive theft occurs when a consumer receives services due to faulty cable operator procedures."

And they can do that. But actual prosecution depends on the law not on what the trade association says.

All of the state laws I could find seem to require intent.
For example in washignton state here is the law.....

>>
RCW 9A.56.220
Theft of subscription television services.
(1) A person is guilty of theft of subscription television services if, with intent to avoid payment of the lawful charge of a subscription television service, he or she:
(a) Obtains or attempts to obtain subscription television service from a subscription television service company by trick, artifice, deception, use of a device or decoder, or other fraudulent means without authority from the company providing the service;

(b) Assists or instructs a person in obtaining or attempting to obtain subscription television service without authority of the company providing the service;

(c) Makes or maintains a connection or connections, whether physical, electrical, mechanical, acoustical, or by other means, with cables, wires, components, or other devices used for the distribution of subscription television services without authority from the company providing the services;

(d) Makes or maintains a modification or alteration to a device installed with the authorization of a subscription television service company for the purpose of interception or receiving a program or other service carried by the company that the person is not authorized by the company to receive; or

(e) Possesses without authority a device designed in whole or in part to receive subscription television services offered for sale by the subscription television service company, regardless of whether the program or services are encoded, filtered, scrambled, or otherwise made unintelligible, or to perform or facilitate the performance of any other acts set out in (a) through (d) of this subsection for the reception of subscription television services without authority.<<

Posted by: Sromkie

Well, I think that most of the posters here (as do I) believe that an MSO would not normally press charges in this circumstance... it is more trouble than it is worth, but I would have to say that this quote from Washington that you found (BTW the sub is in TX) is vague enough to work for the MSO:

quote:
Originally posted by HomeTheaterJock
(c) Makes or maintains a connection or connections, whether physical, electrical, mechanical, acoustical, or by other means, with cables, wires, components, or other devices used for the distribution of subscription television services without authority from the company providing the services

From that quote, and the discussion here, I would conclude that the sub is "maintaining a connection" to "subscription television services." He may not be viewing that connection, but according to the text above, the connection exists, and is being maintained by not notifying the MSO.

Posted by: HomeTheaterJock

quote:
Originally posted by Sromkie
Well, I think that most of the posters here (as do I) believe that an MSO would not normally press charges in this circumstance... it is more trouble than it is worth, but I would have to say that this quote from Washington that you found (BTW the sub is in TX) is vague enough to work for the MSO:
From that quote, and the discussion here, I would conclude that the sub is "maintaining a connection" to "subscription television services." He may not be viewing that connection, but according to the text above, the connection exists, and is being maintained by not notifying the MSO.

I think we are basically in agreement on the practical effects...

But for the sake of discussion, doesn't "maintaining" imply doing something. If the cable company is really going to argue that they can make a mistake and broadcast their programming into my house without my consent and then put the burden on me to do something about it and the law is on their side, then to quote Charles Dickens " The law is an ass."

Posted by: Sromkie

quote:
Originally posted by HomeTheaterJock
But for the sake of discussion, doesn't "maintaining" imply doing something. If the cable company is really going to argue that they can make a mistake and broadcast their programming into my house without my consent and then put the burden on me to do something about it and the law is on their side, then to quote Charles Dickens " The law is an ass."

LOL! Well I agree with you there... laws are, many times, asinine. For example, in Alabama, dominos may not be played on Sundays... obviously asinine, and could you imagine an officer of the law trying to enforce that law? But, none the less, the law is written, therefor it is the *official rule* regardless of how asinine it is.

Posted by: Sromkie

Oh, and specific to the subs home area (so this he better watch out for)... in Austin, TX it is illegal to carry wire cutters in your pocket.

Posted by: rseligman

quote:
Originally posted by Sromkie
I would have to say that this quote from Washington that you found (BTW the sub is in TX) is vague enough to work for the MSO:
From that quote, and the discussion here, I would conclude that the sub is "maintaining a connection" to "subscription television services." He may not be viewing that connection, but according to the text above, the connection exists, and is being maintained by not notifying the MSO.

Your quote is a subsection of paragraph 1, which says: with intent to avoid payment. So once again, intent is the key. If (1) isn't satisifed, then (c) doesn't even come into play. In other words, unless you are guilty of intent to avoid payment, then the reason why you're getting the signal is irrelevant.

In California, you violate the law if you are any person who, for the purpose of intercepting, receiving, or using any program or other service...Knowingly and willfully makes or maintains an unauthorized connection or connections. So while you may knowingly maintain the connection, if you are not doing it for the purpose of intercepting, receiving, or using the program (that is, if you're just doing it out of laziness to call and report it), then you're not violating this law.

Then again, interpretations like these are what judges are for.

Posted by: bareyb

quote:
Originally posted by timckelley
Well, actually, I have no box of any kind... it's just an analog cable coming into the house. But even if they knew I had it, couldn't I claim I didn't know I had it, and never asked to have it? By the way, if they start charging for it, I'd probably cancel it.

Ethically there's no question. You are getting something you are supposed to be paying for for free. That's a no brainer. Since you have no box that means they probably block HBO by putting a trap directly on the coax cable outside your house. That should have been done when they hooked you up. The installer probably didn't have one on his truck and so he gave you a freebie thinking you'd never complain. ;)

Posted by: TiVoMonkey

Well technically, the Agent of the cable company that installed the cable "authorized" him to use HBO by leaving it on/turning it on. But I'm no lawyer.

And unless he was taking this free HBO and splicing cable to his neighbors and selling it to them, the cable company isn't going to do anything other than turn off the HBO.

quote:
Originally posted by Sromkie
Here is the most specific information that I could find related to this on the Time Warner site for Austin, TX...
"8. If Customer tampers with any of the Equipment or makes any unauthorized use of Time Warner Cable's service, Customer will be in breach of this Service Agreement, and Time Warner Cable may terminate Customer's service and take legal action against Customer as allowed by law."

I think this counts as unauthorized use of service...

Posted by: Sromkie

quote:
Originally posted by TiVoMonkey
And unless he was taking this free HBO and splicing cable to his neighbors and selling it to them, the cable company isn't going to do anything other than turn off the HBO.

I don't think that there is anyone who is in disagreement on that point. It would not be in any MSO's best interest to go after someone for passive theft; all that does is alienate customers. The point was just that the MSO does have recourse if they so chose, which they wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing that they could do.

Posted by: redtape

quote:
Originally posted by mbalgeman
I have no idea if this is true or not, but I believe it.
(url removed by request of the system)

I actually know the person who put up the web page.
I didn't keep up with the page when she posted it, but it looks like an interesting read (she told us at work about what was going on).
Yes, this event really happened.

(can't quote URL, system rejects it).

Posted by: HomeTheaterJock

quote:
Originally posted by mbalgeman
I have no idea if this is true or not, but I believe it.
http://www.geocities.com/flutocracy/cablemodem.htm

This makes me want to cancel my cable modem and go back to dialup.

Posted by: nsysblh

Ok, I have only a cable modem and no cable service, just Directv.

So, since I have no possible way to know if any video is being delivered, is it still my problem?

If I hook up a splitter, or disconnect the cable modem to check, I'd be "attempting" to steal service, wouldn't I? So there is no possible way to know if there are sufficient traps in place or not. I don't even know if there are supposed to be traps here.

Of course, Directv could also enable something I don't pay for and I'd never know, as the DSR6000's aren't set to record from channels I don't receive.

Sounds like any service provider can prosecute any customer with wild reckless abandon these days without any checks or balances in place.

They can't do it too often and still stay in business, though.

Brandon