Sky deals

[bobmac]

As I see it there is a difference.
Taking an item and not paying for it means the shop can't sell it to someone else so the shop loses money.

If the choice is not having SKY or streaming it illegally, then SKY haven't lost any money

 

[TheDiablo]

Off topic but just for curiosity sake, is Mrs Wiggles stealing anything?

Isn't it the folk who run the website and broadcast the signal who are the ones doing the stealing and putting it globally online and he hasn't in fact stolen anything?

At worst is Mrs Wiggles guilty of simply receiving a stolen service, but then its an electronic signal available through the entire internet & provided to everyone connected to that same internet

Its quite likely that Mrs Wiggles knows full well that the stream isn't from a legally authorised source but as a defense a user of such a stream might just ask; who here checks out the copyright and broadcast rights of each and every audio/video clip they see online prior to watching it (even just that funny vid your mate sent you on whasapp or faceslap)
I suggest zero people do these checks (why would we) and I'd also say then that its more than likely that everyone using the internet has at some point either watched or listened to a file somewhere online where the correct broadcast permissions/copyright was not in place for in order to allow it to be viewed/shared, and since ignorance is no excuse in law are we all then guilty of the exact same offense as Mrs Wiggles?

As I say, just curious...

Oh come off it. You must be exceptionally bored. You also know the answer, or if you honestly don't then I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time in responding.

If you can't see the difference between actively choosing to routinely be involved in criminal activity, knowing full well that you are depriving an organisation of money for your personal gain that they are entitled to and watching the odd clip on twitter cos your mate sends you a link to a great goal then your moral compass needs a real shake.

If we all suddenly chose to not contribute to society and act that way then Sky and BT pay less money for sport. Clubs get less money. Standards drop, both in terms of player quality and production quality. People lose jobs. The same applies to TV, Film - in fact all goods and services we pay for.

Watching any content you don't have the right to is theft, much like the board game thread. In this literal instance I'm a thief - as you point out nearly all of us are. I wouldn't return that board game, and I wouldn't write a letter to the copyright holders after watching a clip.

CHOOSING to partake in any illegal activity that effects others on a regular basis is not only deliberately breaking the law, but it also makes you a selfish tw.. Hence my analogy with stealing the weekly shop.

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

As we are wandering off topic, it's fascinating that nearly all posters on the thread about something not being scanned at a checkout would not keep the item and would make every effort to pay, otherwise, it is theft, but then on here seem to be not bothered that people are actively avoiding paying for Sky. What's the difference?

Strangely enough, although I happily stream sport, I wouldn't keep the un-scanned item. Perhaps because one is a physical item, and one isn't. If I didn't stream the sport, please rest assured I wouldn't buy Sky, as I believe it is seriously over priced. I used to have Sky for a number of years. I lost my job, and it was the first thing to go. Other than the one prem game that used to be on a Sunday I found I didn't miss at all. I should point out that even I spent a fortune on the complete package, I still wouldn't get Saturday 3pm games, so would still stream anyway.

Yes, it is technically illegal, but so is driving at 75mph on a motorway, and who doesn't do that ?

 

[Dibby]

As I see it there is a difference.
Taking an item and not paying for it means the shop can't sell it to someone else so the shop loses money.

If the choice is not having SKY or streaming it illegally, then SKY haven't lost any money

So if I steal food that is about to go out of date from a supermarket, it's ok, because they wouldn't have been able to sell that product?

If a product wasn't selling it's ok to steal it?

Part of the problem is people understand physical items, but not non-physical items. Software is a great example fo this. If I spend a year of my life making an app, I might work out that I plan to sell 25,000 copies of it on the app store at £2 each to cover my time and my expenses to produce the app. I'm actually selling each copy of the app for less than it cost me to make it, if only 1 copy is sold and then copied I make a huge loss. If my app wasn't useful, this would be expected, but it would be galling if my app was hugely popular and successful but I got no compensation for it because people didn't fancy paying for it.

Not paying also means that those who do pay have to pay more.

 

[Dibby]

Strangely enough, although I happily stream sport, I wouldn't keep the un-scanned item. Perhaps because one is a physical item, and one isn't. If I didn't stream the sport, please rest assured I wouldn't buy Sky, as I believe it is seriously over priced. I used to have Sky for a number of years. I lost my job, and it was the first thing to go. Other than the one prem game that used to be on a Sunday I found I didn't miss at all. I should point out that even I spent a fortune on the complete package, I still wouldn't get Saturday 3pm games, so would still stream anyway.

Yes, it is technically illegal, but so is driving at 75mph on a motorway, and who doesn't do that ?

Speeding is another interesting one. 75mph on a motorway is probably not that dangerous, but plenty of people speed in lower limit areas and cause more harm (damage, injuries and deaths) than stealing ever would, yet stealing is seen as worse than speeding. Human justification for behaviour is a fascinating topic.

 

[Dibby]

Whether you know or don't know isn't it true to say the person or company has still been deprived, that fact doesn't change
So whether you know or don't know the origin & authenticity of every audio/video file you're using online, your guilt or innocence doesn't change either (just how you feel about it)

And if they took a moment it consider it then surely no reasonable person will believe all the content they use online is fully legal and compliant to copyright and broadcast rights

I agree that the deprivation has occurred no matter what, but whether you know or not is critical as to whether it is legally defined as theft or not.

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

So if I steal food that is about to go out of date from a supermarket, it's ok, because they wouldn't have been able to sell that product?

If a product wasn't selling it's ok to steal it?

Part of the problem is people understand physical items, but not non-physical items. Software is a great example fo this. If I spend a year of my life making an app, I might work out that I plan to sell 25,000 copies of it on the app store at £2 each to cover my time and my expenses to produce the app. I'm actually selling each copy of the app for less than it cost me to make it, if only 1 copy is sold and then copied I make a huge loss. If my app wasn't useful, this would be expected, but it would be galling if my app was hugely popular and successful but I got no compensation for it because people didn't fancy paying for it.

Not paying also means that those who do pay have to pay more.

Your quite possibly right, but fortunately I have few morals, and absolutely no conscience

 

[MegaSteve]

Your quite possibly right, but fortunately I have few morals, and absolutely no conscience

Probably the same arsewipe logic of the tool that's been flying a drone over Gatwick...

 

[Slime]

CHOOSING to partake in any illegal activity that effects others on a regular basis is not only deliberately breaking the law, but it also makes you a selfish tw..

Does that include speeding ................................... which, I'm sure, we all do?

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

Probably the same arsewipe logic of the tool that's been flying a drone over Gatwick...

I know it's digressing, but on that note I have a question. A drone isn't particularly large, and weighs next to nothing. If the staff at Gatwick spot a swan in the area, which is massive and weighs a ton, does everything come to a halt ?

 

[Slab]

I know it's digressing, but on that note I have a question. A drone isn't particularly large, and weighs next to nothing. If the staff at Gatwick spot a swan in the area, which is massive and weighs a ton, does everything come to a halt ?

Prob not but unless very well trained your typical swan doesn't usually have the capability to drop any kind of weapon or other harmful cargo

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

Prob not but unless very well trained your typical swan doesn't usually have the capability to drop any kind of weapon or other harmful cargo

Alright then, a goose

 

[Dibby]

Alright then, a goose

Birds do close airports also. The reason it's less common is that birds usually act on instinct and don't have nefarious purposes behind their actions. That is to say, birds only hang around airports if they think it will make a good habitat. Various methods are used to scare birds away and make the habitat undesirable. Unfortunately, humans are more complex and someone flying a drone at an airport isn't so simply dealt with.

Anecdotally many years ago I was on a plane that suffered a bird strike to one of the engines, so it does happen.